Egbert v. Boule

Summary

The Supreme Court held that Bivens does not extend to create damages causes of action for Robert Boule's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim against Border Patrol Agent Erik Egbert or his First Amendment retaliation claim. For the Fourth Amendment claim, the Court concluded that the border-security context raises national-security special factors foreclosing relief and that statutorily mandated Border Patrol oversight together with the regulatory grievance process constitute adequate alternative remedies. For the First Amendment claim, the Court found a new Bivens context and many reasons to think Congress is better suited to weigh the costs of a retaliation damages remedy, adding that Davis v. Passman carries little weight under the modern framework. Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, urging outright abandonment of Bivens; Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, concurred in the judgment as to the First Amendment claim but dissented as to the Fourth Amendment claim, arguing the Court rewrote the governing two-step framework.