Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

retaliation claim “threaten[s] to set off broad-ranging dis-
covery in which there is often no clear end to the relevant
evidence.”  Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip 
op., at 11) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[U]ndoubtedly,” then, the “prospect of personal liability” 
under the First Amendment would lead “to new difficulties 
and expense.”  Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 425.  Federal em-
ployees “face[d with] the added risk of personal liability for 
decisions that they believe to be a correct response to im-
proper [activity] would be deterred from” carrying out their 
duties.  Bush,  462  U. S.,  at  389.  We  are  therefore  “con-
vinced” that, in light of these costs, “Congress is in a better 
position to decide whether or not the public interest would 
be served” by imposing a damages action.  Id., at 390. 

The Court of Appeals nonetheless extended Bivens to the 
First  Amendment  because,  in  its  view,  retaliation  claims 
are “well-established,” and Boule alleges that Agent Egbert
“was  not  carrying  out  official  duties”  when  he  retaliated 
against him.  998 F. 3d, at 391.  Neither rationale has merit. 
First,  just  because  plaintiffs  often  plead  unlawful  retalia-
tion to establish a First Amendment violation is not a rea-
son to afford them a cause of action to sue federal officers 
for money damages.  If anything, that retaliation claims are
common, and therefore more likely to impose “a significant 
expansion  of  Government  liability,”  Meyer,  510  U. S.,  at 
486, counsels against permitting Bivens relief. 

Second,  the  Court  of  Appeals’  scope-of-duty  observation
does not meaningfully limit the number of potential Bivens 
claims  or  otherwise  undermine  the  reasons  for  hesitation 
stated  above.  It  is  easy  to  allege  that  federal  employees 
acted beyond the scope of their authority when claiming a 
constitutional violation.  And, regardless, granting Bivens 
relief because a federal agent supposedly did not act pursu-
ant to his law-enforcement mission “misses the point.”  Her-
nández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14).  “The question is 
not whether national security,” or some other governmental