Egbert v. Boule - 142 S. Ct. 1793 (2022)

Rule:

To inform a court’s analysis of a proposed Bivens claim, the U.S. Supreme Court's cases have framed the inquiry as proceeding in two steps. First, the Court asks whether the case presents a new Bivens context—i.e., is it meaningfully different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action. Second, if a claim arises in a new context, a Bivens remedy is unavailable if there are special factors indicating that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed. If there is even a single reason to pause before applying Bivens in a new context, a court may not recognize a Bivens remedy. While the Court's cases describe two steps, those steps often resolve to a single question: whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.

Facts:

Respondent owned a bed-and-breakfast inn that abutted the international border between Canada and the U.S. He informed the petitioner, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, about a possible person engaged in unlawful cross-border activity. Amidst the patrol, the petitioner became violent to the respondent. Respondent filed a grievance and an administrative claim with Border Patrol under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which was denied. Respondent then sued the petitioner in district court, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for excessive use of force and a First Amendment violation for unlawful retaliation. Invoking Bivens case, respondent asked the district court to recognize a damages action for each alleged constitutional violation. The district court declined to extend Bivens as requested, but the court of appeals reversed.

Issue:

Did the court of appeals err when it created a cause of action for the respondent’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Congress was better positioned to create remedies in the border-security context, and Government already had provided alternative remedies that protected plaintiffs like the respondent. Because matters intimately related to foreign policy and national security were rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention, a Bivens cause of action may not lie where national security was at issue. There was no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation. There were many reasons to think that Congress, not the courts, was better suited to authorize such a damages remedy.