Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

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

13 

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

discrimination or law enforcement overreach,” which lends 
itself to a Bivens action, from a challenge to “large-scale pol-
icy decisions,” which does not).  No special factors counsel
against allowing Boule’s Bivens action to proceed. 

C 
Boule also argues that his First Amendment retaliatory-
investigation claim is cognizable under Bivens.  I concur in 
the Court’s judgment that it is not, but I arrive at that con-
clusion by following precedent rather than by applying the 
Court’s  new,  single-step  inquiry.  Ante,  at  7;  see  infra,  at 
15–17. 

This Court has repeatedly assumed without deciding that 
Bivens  extends  to  First  Amendment  claims,  see  Wood  v. 
Moss, 572 U. S. 744, 757 (2014), but has never squarely held 
as much, see Reichle v.  Howards, 566 U. S. 658, 663, n. 4 
(2012).  Accordingly, Boule’s First Amendment retaliation
presents a new context for the purpose of the Bivens analy-
sis.  See Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 24) (noting that 
a case can present a new context if it implicates a different 
constitutional  right  than  those  already  recognized  as  cog-
nizable under Bivens).

Moving to the second step of the Bivens inquiry, unlike
Boule’s  Fourth  Amendment  claim,  there  is  “reason  to 
pause” before extending Bivens to Boule’s First Amendment 
claim.  Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7).  In par-
ticular, his First Amendment claim raises line-drawing con-
cerns  similar  to  those  this  Court  identified  in  Wilkie,  551 
U. S. 537.  In Wilkie, a landowner sought to bring a Bivens 
action  against  federal  officials  whom  the  landowner  ac-
cused of harassment and intimidation meant to extract an 
easement across his property.  551 U. S., at 541.  The Court 
observed that “defining a workable cause of action” for such 
a  claim  was  “difficul[t].”    Id.,  at  555;  see  also  id.,  at  557. 
Recognizing  a  Bivens  action  to  redress  retaliation  under 
such  circumstances  would,  in  the  Court’s  view,  “invite