Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 30

6 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

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

Bivens’ inquiry to  develop a two-step test for determining 
whether a Bivens cause of action may be “defeated.”  Carl-
son, 446 U. S., at 18.  First, the Court considered whether, 
under the circumstances of a particular case, special factors
counseled hesitation in allowing a private right of action to
proceed.  See,  e.g.,  Bivens,  403  U. S.,  at  396;  Davis,  442 
U. S., at 246; Carlson, 446 U. S., at 18; Bush v. Lucas, 462 
U. S.  367,  377–380  (1983).  Second,  the  Court  considered 
whether  “Congress  has  provided  an  alternative  remedy 
which  it  explicitly  declared  to  be  a  substitute  for  recovery
directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effec-
tive.”  Carlson, 446 U. S., at 18–19; see also, e.g., Davis, 442 
U. S.,  at  246–247;  Bush,  462  U. S.,  at  377–378;  Wilkie  v. 
Robbins, 551 U. S. 537, 550 (2007) (describing this two-step 
test).  Where, for example, Congress crafted an “elaborate 
remedial  system  that  has  been  constructed  step  by  step, 
with careful attention to conflicting policy considerations,” 
Bush, 462 U. S., at 388, this Court concluded that “it would 
be inappropriate . . . to supplement that regulatory scheme 
with a new judicial remedy,” id., at 368; accord, Schweiker 
v. Chilicky, 487 U. S. 412, 414 (1988).  Applying this two-
step test, the Court has declined to extend Bivens beyond
situations  like  those  addressed  in  Davis,  Carlson,  and 
Bivens itself.  See ante, at 1. 

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. 120, the Court not only de-
clined to extend Bivens but also revised and narrowed its 
two-step analytic framework.  The Ziglar Court set forth a 
new  inquiry  requiring  courts  considering  a  Bivens  claim 
first to ask whether a case “is different in a meaningful way 
from  previous  Bivens  cases  decided  by  this  Court”  and 
therefore  arises  in  a  “new  . . .  context.”  582  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 16); see also Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___, 
___ (2020) (slip op., at 7).  The Ziglar Court offered a laun-
dry list of differences that “might” be meaningful, including 
“the rank of the officers involved; the constitutional right at
issue; the generality or specificity of the official action; the