Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

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 THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In  Bivens  v.  Six  Unknown  Fed.  Narcotics  Agents,  403 
U. S.  388  (1971),  this  Court  authorized  a  damages  action
against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth 
Amendment.  Over the past 42 years, however, we have de-
clined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other
alleged constitutional violations.  See Chappell v. Wallace, 
462 U. S. 296 (1983); Bush v. Lucas, 462 U. S. 367 (1983); 
United States v. Stanley, 483 U. S. 669 (1987); Schweiker v. 
Chilicky, 487 U. S. 412 (1988); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471 
(1994); Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61 
(2001); Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U. S. 537 (2007); Hui v. Cas-
taneda, 559 U. S. 799 (2010); Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U. S. 
118 (2012); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___ (2017); Hernán-
dez v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ (2020).  Nevertheless, the Court 
of Appeals permitted not one, but two constitutional dam-
ages actions to proceed against a U. S. Border Patrol agent:
a  Fourth  Amendment  excessive-force  claim  and  a  First 
Amendment  retaliation  claim.  Because  our  cases  have 
made clear that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, 
prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the 
courts, we reverse.