1. Because recognizing a Bivens action "is 'a disfavored judicial activity," it is settled that no Bivens claim may lie where "there is any rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to 'weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed." Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803, 1805 (2022) (quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135, 136 (2017)). Two such reasons that create a new Bivens context and foreclose Bivens relief are when "the constitutional right at issue" or "the statutory or other legal mandate under which the officer was operating" meaningfully differs from Bivens itself, which involved a warrantless home search by federal narcotics officers. Ziglar, 582 U.S. at 140. The decision below deepens two already entrenched circuit splits concerning whether a court can extend Bivens to Fourth Amendment claims that do not concern the search of a home, or to Fourth Amendment claims against officers of an agency operating under a different legal mandate. This Court's review of these important issues is urgently needed.

Whether a Bivens action is available to remedy Fourth Amendment violations occurring outside the context of a warrantless home search or against officers of an agency operating under a different legal mandate than those in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics