Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

Syllabus 

merit is Boule’s claim that this Court identified a Bivens cause of ac-
tion under allegedly similar circumstances in Passman.  Even assum-
ing factual parallels, Passman carries little weight because it predates 
the Court’s current approach to implied causes of action.  A plaintiff 
cannot  justify  a  Bivens  extension  based  on  “parallel  circumstances” 
with Bivens, Passman, or Carlson—the three cases in which the Court 
has implied a damages action—unless the plaintiff also satisfies the
prevailing “analytic framework” prescribed by the last four decades of 
intervening case law.  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___–___.  Pp. 13–16. 

998 F. 3d 370, reversed. 

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and ALITO, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed an 
opinion concurring in the judgment.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion con-
curring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER 
and KAGAN, JJ., joined.