Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

EGBERT v. BOULE 

Opinion of the Court 

Egbert but against Border Patrol agents generally.  The an-
swer, plainly, is no.  See Hernández, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 14) (refusing to extend Bivens into the “field” of “bor-
der security”). 

The Court of Appeals’ analysis betrays the pitfalls of ap-
plying the special-factors analysis at too granular a level. 
The court rested on three irrelevant distinctions from Her-
nández.  First, Agent Egbert was several feet from (rather
than straddling) the border, but cross-border security is ob-
viously  implicated  in  either  event.    Second,  Boule’s  guest
arrived in Seattle from New York rather than abroad, but 
an alien’s port of entry does not make him less likely to be 
a national-security threat.  And third, Agent Egbert inves-
tigated immigration violations on our side of the border, not 
Canada’s,  but  immigration  investigations  in  this  country
are perhaps more likely to impact the national security of 
the United States.  In short, the Court of Appeals offered no
plausible  basis  to  permit  a  Fourth  Amendment  Bivens 
claim against Agent Egbert to proceed. 

2 

Second, Congress has provided alternative remedies for 
aggrieved  parties  in  Boule’s  position  that  independently 
foreclose a Bivens action here.  In Hernández, we declined 
to authorize a Bivens remedy, in part, because the Execu-
tive Branch already had investigated alleged misconduct by
the defendant Border Patrol agent.  See 589 U. S., at ___– 
___,  ___  (slip  op.,  at  9–10,  14).    In  Malesko,  we  explained
that Bivens relief was unavailable because federal prison-
ers could, among other options, file grievances through an
“Administrative Remedy Program.”  534 U. S., at 74.  Both 
kinds of remedies are available here.  The U. S. Border Pa-
trol is statutorily obligated to “control, direc[t], and super-
vis[e]  . . .  all  employees.”    8  U. S. C.  §1103(a)(2).    And,  by
regulation, Border Patrol must investigate “[a]lleged viola-
tions of the standards for enforcement activities” and accept