This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Court held that there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.
The Court of Appeals erred when it created causes of action for Boule.
Justice Gorsuch dissented from the Court’s treatment of Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Sarah M. Harris)
According to Sarah M. Harris, the Court should not expand Bivens for the first time in 40 years because recent precedent rejects that premise.
Amicus Curiae (Michael R. Huston, United States)
According to Michael R. Huston (Amicus Curiae for United States), according to Michael R. Huston (Amicus Curiae for United States), a straightforward application of recent Bivens precedents demonstrates the limits of Bivens extensions.
Respondent (Felicia H. Ellsworth)
According to Felicia H. Ellsworth (Counsel for Respondent), according to Felicia H. Ellsworth (Counsel for Respondent), Mr. Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim is materially indistinguishable from Bivens itself.
Agent Egbert
According to Agent Egbert, operating under a statutory mandate not invoked in prior cases dooms Boule’s no‑new‑context argument.
According to Agent Egbert, the FTCA offers an alternative remedy for claims like Boule’s.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
CBP’s internal administrative grievance procedure offers an adequate remedy and does not require a Bivens‑type claim for participation or appeal rights.
Petitioner (Border Patrol Position)
According to Petitioner, border Patrol agents should not be subjected to Bivens actions.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether the Fourth Amendment claim here forecloses the argument that it is excluded.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas questioned why the Court has declined to apply or extend Bivens in recent history.
Justice Kavanaugh asked about the relevance of Canada and cross‑border cooperation to the case.
According to Justice GORSUCH, justice Gorsuch inquired about qualified immunity and whether the law is clearly established.
Justice Barrett questioned whether the Court should recognize a new Bivens claim given its disfavor in recent years.
Justice Kagan asked how the Court should handle Fourth Amendment claims that invoke national security.
- [1] 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdf, p. 6
- [2] 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdf, p. 44
- [3] 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdf, p. 45
- [4] 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdf, p. 66
- [5] 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdf, p. 69
- [6] 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdf, p. 74
What the Court decided
The Court held that there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.
The Court of Appeals erred when it created causes of action for Boule.
Justice Gorsuch dissented from the Court’s treatment of Boule’s Fourth Amendment claim.
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 071af78cadbfe3c3d060-r1-9c6212bd4d60d6c0.pdforal argument transcript
- 785bbb60cb0c01c8c67c-r1-77aca25def67fac2.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.