Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

20 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

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

§287.1(a)(2) (2021).  The Court’s choice to foreclose liability 
for constitutional violations that occur in the course of such 
activities, based on even the most tenuous and hypothetical
connection  to  the  border  (and  thereby,  to  the  “national-
security  context”),  betrays  the  context-specific  nature  of 
Bivens and shrinks Bivens in the core Fourth Amendment 
law  enforcement  sphere  where  it  is  needed  most.    See 
Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).5 

2 

The Court further proclaims that Congress has provided 
alternative  remedies  that  “independently  foreclose”  a 
Bivens action in this case.  Ante, at 12.  The administrative 
remedy the Court perceives, however, is no remedy whatso-
ever. 

The  sole  “remedy”  the  Court  cites  is  an  administrative
grievance procedure that does not provide Boule with any 
relief.  The statute on which the Court relies provides: The 
“Secretary of Homeland Security . . . shall have control, di-
rection, and supervision of all employees and of all the files
and records of [CBP].”  8 U. S. C. §1103(a)(2); see ante, at 
12.  Administrative  regulations  direct  CBP  to  investigate
alleged violations of its own standards by its own employ-
ees.  See 8 CFR §§287.10(a)–(b).6  The Court sees fit to defer 

—————— 

5 To the extent the Court’s decision may be motivated by fears that al-
lowing this Bivens action to proceed will open the floodgates to countless
claims in the future, cf. ante, at 15, that concern is overblown.  The doc-
trine of qualified immunity will continue to protect government officials
from  liability  for  damages  unless  a  plaintiff  “ ‘pleads  facts  showing  (1)
that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that
the  right  was  “clearly  established”  at  the  time  of  the  challenged  con-
duct.’ ”  Wood v. Moss, 572 U. S. 744, 757 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-
Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 735 (2011)). 

6 The regulations require any investigative report regarding excessive 
force to “be referred promptly for appropriate action in accordance with 
the policies and procedures of the Department [of Homeland Security].” 
8 CFR §287.10(c).  Those policies and procedures, in turn, explicitly es-
tablish no “right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law