Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

Opinion of the Court 

462 U. S., at 372.  Thus here, as in Hernández, we have no 
warrant to doubt that the consideration of Boule’s grievance 
against Agent Egbert secured adequate deterrence and af-
forded Boule an alternative remedy.  See 589 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 10). 

B 
We also conclude that there is no Bivens cause of action 
for Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim.  While we 
have assumed that such a damages action might be availa-
ble, see, e.g., Hartman v. Moore, 547 U. S. 250, 252 (2006), 
“[w]e have never held that Bivens extends to First Amend-
ment claims,” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U. S. 658, 663, n. 4 
(2012).  Because a new context arises when there is a new 
“constitutional right at issue,” Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 16), the Court of Appeals correctly held that Boule’s
First Amendment claim presents a new Bivens context.  See 
998  F. 3d,  at  390.    Now  presented  with  the  question
whether to extend Bivens to this context, we hold that there 
is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.  There 
are many reasons to think that Congress, not the courts, is
better suited to authorize such a damages remedy.

Recognizing any new Bivens action “entail[s] substantial 
social costs, including the risk that fear of personal mone-
tary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit of-
ficials  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties.”  Anderson  v. 
Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 638 (1987).  Extending Bivens to 
alleged  First  Amendment  violations  would  pose  an  acute 
risk of increasing such costs.  A plaintiff can turn practically
any  adverse  action  into  grounds  for  a  retaliation  claim. 
And, “[b]ecause an official’s state of mind is easy to allege 
and hard to disprove, insubstantial claims that turn on [re-
taliatory] intent may be less amenable to summary disposi-
tion.”  Crawford-El  v.  Britton,  523  U. S.  574,  584–585 
(1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).  Even a frivolous