Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 45

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

21 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

to this procedure, even while acknowledging that complain-
ants in Boule’s position have no right to participate in the 
proceedings or to seek judicial review of any determination. 
Ante, at 12.  The Court supports its conclusion that CBP’s
internal administrative grievance procedure offers an ade-
quate remedy by insisting that “we have never held that a 
Bivens alternative must afford rights to participation or ap-
peal.”  Ante, at 13.  In the Court’s view, “[s]o long as Con-
gress or the Executive has created a remedial process that
it finds sufficient to secure an adequate level of deterrence,
the courts cannot second-guess that calibration by superim-
posing a Bivens remedy.”  Ibid. (emphasis added).

This analysis drains the concept of “remedy” of all mean-
ing.  To be sure, the Court has previously deemed  Bivens 
claims  foreclosed  by  “substantive”  remedies  to  claimants 
that are in significant part administrative.  Bush, 462 U. S., 
at 385; see also, e.g., Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 424–425.  The 
Court also has recognized that existing remedies need not 
“provide complete relief for the plaintiff,” Bush, 462 U. S., 
at 388, including loss due to emotional distress or mental
anguish,  or  attorney’s  fees,  Schweiker,  487  U. S.,  at  424– 
425.  Until today, however, this Court has never held that 
a threadbare disciplinary review process, expressly confer-
ring no substantive rights, “secure[s] adequate deterrence 
and afford[s] . . . an alternative remedy.”  Ante, at 14.  Nor 
has it held that remedies providing no relief to the individ-
ual whose constitutional rights have been violated are “ad-
equate” for the purpose of foreclosing a Bivens action.  To 
the contrary, each of the alternative remedies the Court has 
recognized  has  afforded  participatory  rights,  an  oppor-
tunity  for  judicial  review,  and  the  potential  to  secure  at
least some meaningful relief.  See, e.g., Minneci v. Pollard, 
565 U. S. 118, 127 (2012) (state tort law); Ziglar, 582 U. S., 

—————— 
or  in  equity.”  Dept.  of  Homeland  Security,  Dept.  Policy  on  the  Use  of
Force, §X, Policy Statement 044–05 (Sept. 7, 2018).