Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482

Robert Boule owns Smuggler’s Inn along the U.S.–Canada border; he worked as a paid informant for federal authorities while also transporting/lodging undocumented crossers for a fee.
On March 20, 2014, CBP Agent Erik Egbert followed a vehicle to Boule’s driveway, refused Boule’s request to leave, and (per Boule) threw him against the vehicle and to the ground while checking a guest’s immigration papers.
Boule filed CBP administrative complaints and an FTCA claim; CBP investigated, the FTCA claim was denied, and CBP took no disciplinary action that produced private relief.
Boule sued Egbert individually under Bivens for (1) Fourth Amendment excessive force and (2) First Amendment retaliation (alleging Egbert instigated an audit and reported Boule’s license plate).
The District Court refused to extend Bivens and entered judgment for Egbert; the Ninth Circuit reversed and allowed both claims; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding no Bivens remedy for either claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Boule)	Defendant's Argument (Egbert/Gov't)	Held
Whether Bivens authorizes damages for alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force by a Border Patrol/CBP agent	Bivens permits damages for federal officers who use excessive force on U.S. soil; this case is factually akin to Bivens	Special factors counsel hesitation: border-security/national-security implications; Congress/agency grievance procedures and FTCA process provide alternative remedies	No Bivens remedy — court refused to extend Bivens (national-security concerns re border enforcement + available alternative administrative remedies)
Whether Bivens authorizes damages for alleged First Amendment retaliation by a federal agent	Retaliation claims are established; agent’s conduct (contacting agencies) injured Boule and warrants damages under Bivens	Extending Bivens would chill officials, raise difficult line-drawing and scope concerns, and Congress is better placed to weigh costs/benefits	No Bivens remedy — new context; special factors (chilling, line-drawing, systemic costs) mean Congress should decide whether to create damages remedy

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized an implied damages remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation by federal agents)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017) (established modern two-step framework for deciding whether to extend Bivens and emphasized caution and "special factors")
Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U.S. _ (2020) (declined to extend Bivens for a cross-border shooting; emphasized border-security/national-security special factor)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (extended Bivens to a Fifth Amendment sex-discrimination claim)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (extended Bivens under the Eighth Amendment for inadequate medical care of a federal prisoner)
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (refused to extend Bivens to a suit against a private corporation operating a federal prison)
Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (refused to imply a damages remedy where Congress had created a comprehensive remedial scheme)
Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (cautioned about line-drawing and difficulty of devising workable causes of action in certain contexts)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (noted risk that personal monetary liability can unduly inhibit officials)