Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

19 

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

Boule’s property.  Nor does it diminish or call into question 
the  remedies  for  constitutional  violations  that  a  plaintiff 
may pursue, particularly where, as here, an agent unques-
tionably  was  not  acting  “for  the  purpose  of  patrolling  the
border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United 
States.”  Ibid. 

Remarkably, the Court goes beyond invoking its national-
security talisman in this case alone.  In keeping with the
unprecedented  level  of  generality  the  Court  imports  into 
the special-factors analysis, the Court holds that courts are 
not “competent to authorize a damages action . . . against
Border Patrol agents generally.”  Ante, at 11.  This extraor-
dinary  and  gratuitous  conclusion  contradicts  decades  of 
precedent  requiring  a  context-specific  determination  of
whether a particular claim presents special factors counsel-
ing hesitation.  See supra, at 6–8.4 

The consequences of the Court’s drive-by, categorical as-
sertion  will  be  severe.    Absent  intervention  by  Congress,
CBP agents are now absolutely immunized from liability in 
any Bivens action for damages, no matter how egregious the 
misconduct or resultant injury.  That will preclude redress
under Bivens for injuries resulting from constitutional vio-
lations  by  CBP’s  nearly  20,000  Border  Patrol  agents,  in-
cluding those engaged in ordinary law enforcement activi-
ties, like traffic stops, far removed from the border.  U. S. 
Customs  and  Border  Protection,  On  a  Typical  Day  in 
Fiscal  Year  2021,  CBP  . . .  (2022),  https://www.cbp.gov/
newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2021.   This  is  no  hypothet-
ical: Certain CBP agents exercise broad authority to make 
warrantless  arrests  and  search  vehicles  up  to  100  miles 
away  from  the  border.  See  8  U. S. C.  §1357(a);  8  CFR 

—————— 

4 Any  concerns  that  a  case-specific  Bivens  inquiry  in  cases  involving 
CBP or ICE agents would pose administrability problems is misplaced.
See Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 14– 
18  (citing  lower  court  cases  that  have  applied  this  approach  to  suits 
against CBP and ICE agents).