Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

“existing  remedies  do  not  provide  complete  relief.”  Ibid. 
Rather, the court must ask only whether it, rather than the
political branches, is better equipped to decide whether ex-
isting remedies “should be augmented by the creation of a 
new judicial remedy.”  Ibid; see also id., at 380 (“the ques-
tion [is] who should decide”). 

III 
Applying  the  foregoing  principles,  the  Court  of  Appeals
plainly  erred  when  it  created  causes  of  action  for  Boule’s 
Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and First Amend-
ment retaliation claim. 

A 
The  Court  of  Appeals  conceded  that  Boule’s  Fourth
Amendment claim presented a new context for Bivens pur-
poses, yet it concluded there was no reason to hesitate be-
fore recognizing a cause of action against Agent Egbert.  See 
998 F. 3d, at 387.  That conclusion was incorrect for two in-
dependent reasons: Congress is better positioned to create 
remedies  in  the  border-security  context,  and  the  Govern-
ment already has provided alternative remedies that pro-
tect plaintiffs like Boule.  We address each in turn. 

1 
In  Hernández, we declined to create a damages remedy
for an excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent 
who shot and killed a 15-year-old Mexican national across
the border in Mexico.  See 589 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 
1–2).  We did not recognize a Bivens action there because 
“regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestion-
ably  has  national  security  implications,”  and  the  “risk  of 
undermining border security provides reason to hesitate be-
fore extending Bivens into this field.”  Hernández, 589 U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 14).  This reasoning applies here with full 
force.  During the alleged altercation with Boule, Agent Eg-