Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

had  cleared  customs  in  New  York.  998  F. 3d,  at  388;  see 
also post, at 11–12, 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.) (same).
The court also found that Boule had a weightier interest in 
Bivens  relief  than  the  parents  of  the  deceased  Mexican
teenager in Hernández, because Boule “is a United States 
citizen, complaining of harm suffered on his own property
in the United States.”  998 F. 3d, at 388; see also post, at 12, 
18  (opinion  of  SOTOMAYOR,  J.)  (same).    Finding  that  “any 
costs imposed by allowing a Bivens claim to proceed are out-
weighed  by  compelling  interests  in  favor  of  protecting
United States citizens on their own property in the United
States,”  the  court  extended  Bivens  to  Boule’s  case.  998 
F. 3d, at 389. 

This analysis is deeply flawed.  The Bivens inquiry does
not invite federal courts to independently assess the costs 
and  benefits  of  implying  a  cause  of  action.  A  court  faces 
only  one  question:  whether  there  is  any  rational  reason 
(even one) to think that Congress is better suited to “weigh
the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to pro-
ceed.”  Ziglar,  582  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  12).    Thus,  a 
court should not inquire, as the Court of Appeals did here,
whether Bivens relief is appropriate in light of the balance
of  circumstances  in  the  “particular  case.”  Stanley,  483 
U. S., at 683.  A court inevitably will “impai[r]” governmen-
tal interests, and thereby frustrate Congress’ policymaking 
role,  if  it  applies  the  “ ‘special  factors’  analysis”  at  such  a 
narrow “leve[l] of generality.”   Id., at 681.  Rather, under 
the proper approach, a court must ask “[m]ore broadly” if 
there is any reason to think that “judicial intrusion” into a 
given field might be “harmful” or “inappropriate.”  Ibid.  If 
so, or even if there is the “potential” for such consequences, 
a court cannot afford a plaintiff a Bivens remedy.  Ziglar, 
582 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 16, 25) (emphasis added). 
As in Hernández, then, we ask here whether a court is com-
petent to authorize a damages action not just against Agent