Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

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

11 

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

U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2).  The Mexican Government un-
successfully sought extradition of the agent to Mexico, and 
after an investigation, the U. S. Department of Justice de-
clined to bring charges against the agent.  Ibid.  The par-
ents of the deceased child attempted to bring a Bivens ac-
tion against the CBP agent, but this Court held that several
“warning flags” counseled caution, including a “potential ef-
fect on foreign relations.”  Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 9).  The Court observed that “[a] cross-border shoot-
ing is by definition an international incident,” and that both 
the  United  States  and  Mexico  had  “legitimate  and  im-
portant interests that may be affected by the way in which
this matter is handled.”  Id., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 9, 11). 
The Court concluded that because “regulating the conduct 
of agents at the border unquestionably has national secu-
rity  implications,  the  risk  of  undermining  border  security 
provides  reason  to  hesitate  before  extending  Bivens  into 
this field.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14). 

The conduct here took place near an international border
and  involved  a  CBP  agent.    That,  however,  is  where  the 
similarities  with  Hernández  begin  and  end.    The  conduct 
occurred exclusively on U. S. soil, and the injury was to a
U. S. citizen.  This case therefore does not present an “in-
ternational incident” that might affect diplomatic relations, 
unlike  the  cross-border  killing  of  a  foreign-national  child. 
As for national-security concerns, the Court in Hernández 
emphasized that “some [CBP agents] are stationed right at 
the border and have the responsibility of attempting to pre-
vent illegal entry”; it was “[f]or th[i]s reaso[n],” among oth-
ers, that their conduct had “a clear and strong connection
to national security.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13).  Here, by
contrast, Agent Egbert was not “attempting to prevent ille-
gal entry” or otherwise engaged in activities with a “strong
connection to national security.”  Ibid.  Agent Egbert was 
aware (because Boule had told him earlier in the day and 
again at the scene) that the foreign national arriving at the