Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 28

4 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

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

anything wrong.  Boule paid over $5,000 to his accountant 
to assist him in responding to the IRS’ tax audit.  Boule also 
filed  claims  pursuant  to  the  Federal  Tort  Claims  Act 
(FTCA), which were denied.  CBP’s investigation of Agent
Egbert concluded that he failed to be forthcoming with in-
vestigators and “demonstrated lack of integrity,” serious of-
fenses  that  warranted  his  removal.    Rev.  Redacted  App. 
184. 

B 
Boule sued Agent Egbert in Federal District Court, seek-
ing damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics 
Agents,  403  U. S.  388,  for  violation  of  Boule’s  First  and 
Fourth  Amendment  rights.    The  District  Court  granted
summary  judgment  to  Agent  Egbert  on  both  claims.    The 
Court  of  Appeals  reversed,  concluding  that  both  claims 
were  cognizable  under  Bivens.  In  the  Court  of  Appeals’
view, Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim constituted a mod-
est  extension  of  Bivens.   Even  so,  the  court  explained,  no
special factors counseled hesitation such that this extension
should  be  foreclosed;  rather,  “Boule’s  Fourth  Amendment 
excessive force claim is part and parcel of the ‘common and 
recurrent sphere of law enforcement’ ” that remained “a per-
missible area for Bivens claims.”  998 F. 3d 370, 389 (CA9 
2021) (quoting Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11)).  The 
court separately held that Boule’s First Amendment claim 
could proceed under Bivens. 

This Court granted certiorari.  595 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 
A 
In  Bivens,  the  plaintiff  alleged  that  Federal  Bureau  of 
Narcotics agents unlawfully entered his apartment in New 
York City and used constitutionally unreasonable force to
arrest him.  403 U. S., at 389.  This Court observed that an 
“agent  acting—albeit  unconstitutionally—in  the  name  of