Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

Opinion of the Court 

Fifth  Amendment  sex-discrimination  claim,  see  Davis  v. 
Passman,  442  U. S.  228  (1979);  and  second,  for  a  federal 
prisoner’s inadequate-care claim under the Eighth Amend-
ment, see Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980). 

Since  these  cases,  the  Court  has  not  implied  additional 
causes of action under the Constitution.  Now long past “the 
heady days in which this Court assumed common-law pow-
ers  to  create  causes  of  action,”  Malesko,  534  U. S.,  at  75 
(Scalia, J., concurring), we have come “to appreciate more 
fully  the  tension  between”  judicially  created  causes  of  ac-
tion and “the Constitution’s separation of legislative and ju-
dicial power,” Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5).
At  bottom,  creating  a  cause  of  action  is  a  legislative  en-
deavor.  Courts engaged in that unenviable task must eval-
uate a “range of policy considerations . . . at least as broad 
as the range . . . a legislature would consider.”  Bivens, 403 
U. S., at 407 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment); see also 
post,  at  2  (GORSUCH,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    Those 
factors include “economic and governmental concerns,” “ad-
ministrative costs,” and the “impact on governmental oper-
ations systemwide.”  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., 
at 10, 13).  Unsurprisingly, Congress is “far more competent 
than  the  Judiciary”  to  weigh  such  policy  considerations. 
Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 423.  And the Judiciary’s authority 
to do so at all is, at best, uncertain.  See, e.g., Hernández, 
589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6). 

Nonetheless,  rather  than  dispense  with  Bivens  alto-
gether, we have emphasized that recognizing a cause of ac-
tion under Bivens is “a disfavored judicial activity.”  Ziglar, 
582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11) (internal quotation marks 
omitted); Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7) (inter-
nal  quotation  marks  omitted).  When  asked  to  imply  a 
Bivens action, “our watchword is caution.”  Id., at ___ (slip 
op., at 6).  “[I]f there are sound reasons to think Congress
might  doubt  the  efficacy  or  necessity  of  a  damages  rem-
edy[,]  the  courts  must  refrain  from  creating  [it].”    Ziglar,