Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

though, we defer to “congressional inaction” if “the design
of a Government program suggests that Congress has pro-
vided  what  it  considers  adequate  remedial  mechanisms.” 
Schweiker, 487 U. S., at 423; see also Ziglar, 582 U. S., at 
___ (slip op., at 14).  Third, when assessing the “special fac-
tors,” Passman asked whether a court is competent to cal-
culate damages “without difficult questions of valuation or 
causation.”  442  U. S.,  at  245.    But  today,  we  do  not  ask 
whether a court can determine a damages amount.  Rather, 
we ask whether “there are sound reasons to think Congress 
might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy”
at all.  Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 13). 

In short, as we explained in Ziglar, a plaintiff cannot jus-
tify  a  Bivens  extension  based  on  “parallel  circumstances” 
with Bivens, Passman,  or Carlson  unless he also satisfies 
the  “analytic  framework”  prescribed  by  the  last  four  dec-
ades of intervening case law.  582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at 15–16).  Boule has failed to do so. 

IV 
Since it was decided, Bivens has had no shortage of de-
tractors.  See, e.g., Bivens, 403 U. S., at 411 (Burger, C. J., 
dissenting);  id.,  at  427  (Black,  J.,  dissenting);  id.,  at  430 
(Blackmun,  J.,  dissenting);  Carlson,  446  U. S.,  at  31 
(Rehnquist,  J.,  dissenting);  Malesko,  534  U. S.,  at  75 
(Scalia,  J.,  concurring);  Hernández,  589  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1); post, at 1–3 (opin-
ion of GORSUCH, J.).  And, more recently, we have indicated
that if we were called to decide Bivens today, we would de-
cline to discover any implied causes of action in the Consti-
tution.  See Ziglar, 582 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11).  But, to 
decide the case before us, we need not reconsider Bivens it-
self.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of
Appeals. 

It is so ordered.