Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

1 

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–147 
_________________ 

ERIK EGBERT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT BOULE 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[June 8, 2022]

 JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR, with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  and 
JUSTICE  KAGAN  join,  concurring  in  the  judgment  in  part 
and dissenting in part. 

Respondent Robert Boule alleges that petitioner Erik Eg-
bert, a U. S. Customs and Border Patrol agent, violated the
Fourth Amendment by entering Boule’s property without a 
warrant  and  assaulting  him.    Existing  precedent  permits 
Boule to seek compensation for his injuries in federal court.
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 
388  (1971);  Ziglar  v.  Abbasi,  582  U. S.  120  (2017).    The 
Court goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid this result: It
rewrites a legal standard it established just five years ago,
stretches  national-security  concerns  beyond  recognition,
and discerns an alternative remedial structure where none 
exists.  The Court’s innovations, taken together, enable it 
to close the door to Boule’s claim and, presumably, to others 
that fall squarely within Bivens’ ambit. 

Today’s  decision  does not  overrule  Bivens.  It  neverthe-
less contravenes precedent and will strip many more indi-
viduals who suffer injuries at the hands of other federal of-
are  materially
ficers, 
indistinguishable  from  those  in  Bivens,  of  an  important 
remedy.  I therefore dissent from the Court’s disposition of 
Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim.  I concur in the Court’s 
judgment that Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim 

circumstances 

and  whose