Robert Boule v. Erik Egbert, 980 F.3d 1309

Plaintiff Robert Boule, a U.S. citizen, owns a bed-and-breakfast whose rear boundary borders Canada.
CBP Agent Erik Egbert stopped Boule in town, later followed a guest’s car into Boule’s driveway, and pushed Boule to the ground after Boule asked him to leave.
Egbert questioned the guest about immigration status; a supervisor cleared the guest and the agents left; Boule sought medical treatment for back injuries.
After Boule complained to Egbert’s superiors, Egbert allegedly retaliated (e.g., contacting the IRS about Boule’s taxes).
Boule sued Egbert in federal court under Bivens for Fourth Amendment excessive force and First Amendment retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for Egbert, treating the claims as improper Bivens extensions.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Bivens damages are available for both the Fourth and First Amendment claims and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Bivens damages remedy is available for alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force by a border patrol agent on plaintiff's U.S. property	Boule: Conventional Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful force by a federal agent on his property warrants Bivens damages	Egbert: This would be a modest Bivens extension that raises special factors (national security, litigation burden); Congress should address remedy	Court: Permitted Bivens remedy — context is a run-of-the-mill Fourth Amendment law-enforcement claim and no special factors counsel hesitation
Whether a Bivens remedy extends to alleged First Amendment retaliation by a border patrol agent (retaliation unconnected to duties)	Boule: Retaliation for complaining to superiors is a well-established First Amendment claim warranting Bivens damages	Egbert: Supreme Court has not recognized Bivens for First Amendment; extension would be new and improper	Court: Context is new but no special factors counsel hesitation; Bivens remedy is available for the retaliation claim
Whether adequate alternative remedies exist (e.g., FTCA, state torts) that preclude a Bivens action	Boule: No adequate alternative; FTCA does not remedy constitutional violations; state tort claims likely barred or displaced	Egbert: Suggests trespass or FTCA remedies might be available	Court: No adequate alternative remedies shown; FTCA excluded claims based on constitutional violations, so Bivens remains appropriate

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied damages remedy under the Fourth Amendment)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (recognized damages remedy under the Fifth Amendment)
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (recognized damages remedy under the Eighth Amendment)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (established the two-step framework and cautioned against judicial expansion of Bivens)
Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020) (refused Bivens extension for cross-border shooting; identified special factors such as foreign-relations and national-security concerns)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (on summary judgment, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party)
Lanuza v. Love, 899 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2018) (permitted a Bivens claim against lower-level officials where no high-level policy or national-security concerns existed)
Fazaga v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 965 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussed alternative-remedy doctrine limiting Bivens)
Rodriguez v. Swartz, 899 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2018) (held alternative remedies must be adequate to displace Bivens)
Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012) (noted the Supreme Court has not extended Bivens to First Amendment claims)