[MR. VLADECK]19LOC[MR. VLADECK] Mr20NPMr .21SENT. Chief22NPChief Justice23NPJustice ,24,, and25CCand may26MDmay it27PPit please28VVplease the29DTthe Court30NPCourt :31:: When32WRBwhen this33DTthis case34NNcase was35VBDbe first36RBfirst argued37VVNargue to38TOto this39DTthis Court40NPCourt two41CDtwo years42NNSyear ago43RBago ,44,, counsel45NNcounsel for46INfor Respondent47NNrespondent and48CCand counsel49NNcounsel for50INfor the51DTthe United52NPUnited States53NPSStates were54VBDbe both55DTboth asked56VVNask whether57INwhether Petitioners58NNSpetitioner would59MDwould have60VHhave a61DTa Bivens62NPBivens remedy63NNremedy if64INif Sergio65NPSergio Hernandez66NPHernandez had67VHDhave been68VBNbe standing69VVGstand on70INon U71NPU .72SENT. S73NPS .74SENT. soil75NNsoil when76WRBwhen he77PPhe was78VBDbe shot79VVNshoot and80CCand killed81VVNkill by82INby Respondent83NNrespondent .84SENT. Both85CCboth said86VVDsay yes87UHyes .88SENT. The89DTthe question90NNquestion before91INbefore this92DTthis Court93NPCourt today94NNtoday is95VBZbe ,96,, therefore97RBtherefore ,98,, whether99INwhether a100DTa Bivens101NPBivens action102NNaction is103VBZbe nevertheless104RBnevertheless foreclosed105VVNforeclose because106INbecause ,107,, in108INin this109DTthis case110NNcase ,111,, Sergio112NPSergio was113VBDbe standing114VVGstand a115DTa few116JJfew feet117NNSfoot to118TOto the119DTthe Mexican120JJMexican side121NNside of122INof the123DTthe border124NNborder at125INat the126DTthe time127NNtime he128PPhe was129VBDbe shot130VVNshoot .131SENT. For132INfor two133CDtwo reasons134NNSreason ,135,, we136PPwe believe137VVPbelieve that138IN/thatthat it139PPit is140VBZbe n't141RBn't .142SENT. First143RBfirst ,144,, the145DTthe fortuity146NNfortuity of147INof where148WRBwhere a149DTa victim150NNvictim is151VBZbe standing152NNstanding does153VVZdo not154RBnot ,155,, in156INin fact157NNfact ,158,, trigger159VVtrigger any160DTany of161INof the162DTthe special163JJspecial factors164NNSfactor counseling165VVGcounsel hesitation166NNhesitation identified167VVNidentify by168INby Respondent169NNrespondent or170CCor the171DTthe United172NPUnited States173NPSStates .174SENT. Most175RBSmost importantly176RBimportantly ,177,, it178PPit is179VBZbe difficult180JJdifficult to181TOto see182VVsee how183WRBhow foreign184JJforeign relations185NNSrelation could186MDcould be187VBbe a188DTa special189JJspecial factor190NNfactor precluding191VVGpreclude a192DTa Bivens193NPBivens suit194NNsuit here195RBhere if196INif it197PPit would198MDwould n't199RBn't have200VHhave precluded201VVNpreclude a202DTa Bivens203NPBivens claim204NNclaim had205VHDhave Sergio206NPSergio been207VBNbe standing208VVGstand just209RBjust a210DTa few211JJfew feet212NNSfoot away213RBaway .214SENT. Moreover215RBmoreover ,216,, the217DTthe government218NNgovernment 's219POS's assertion220NNassertion that221IN/thatthat permitting222VVGpermit Petitioners223NNSpetitioner '224POS' suit225NNsuit would226MDwould dramatically227RBdramatically undermine228VVundermine U229NPU .230SENT. S231NPS .232SENT. foreign233JJforeign relations234NNSrelation and235CCand diplomacy236NNdiplomacy is237VBZbe belied238VVNbelie by239INby the240DTthe long241JJlong history242NNhistory of243INof successful244JJsuccessful tort245NNtort claims246NNSclaim against247INagainst federal248JJfederal law249NNlaw enforcement250NNenforcement officers251NNSofficer ,252,, including253VVGinclude ,254,, as255RBas in256INin the257DTthe Apollon258NPApollon ,259,, cases260NNScase in261INin which262WDTwhich the263DTthe victim264NNvictim was265VBDbe a266DTa foreigner267NNforeigner harmed268VVNharm on269INon foreign270JJforeign soil271NNsoil ,272,, the273DTthe Court274NPCourt awarded275VVDaward damages276NNSdamage ,277,, and278CCand the279DTthe diplomatic280JJdiplomatic sky281NNsky did282VVDdo not283RBnot fall284VVfall .285SENT. Nor286CCnor does287VVZdo extraterritoriality288NNextraterritoriality cut289NNcut against290INagainst a291DTa Bivens292NPBivens remedy293NNremedy here294RBhere .295SENT. Not296RBnot only297RBonly was298VBDbe Respondent299JJrespondent standing300NNstanding on301INon U302NPU .303SENT. S304NPS .305SENT. soil306NNsoil when307WRBwhen he308PPhe pulled309VVDpull the310DTthe trigger311NNtrigger ,312,, but313CCbut he314PPhe could315MDcould not316RBnot have317VHhave known318VVNknow in319INin that320DTthat instant321NNinstant where322WRBwhere the323DTthe bullet324NNbullet would325MDwould even326RBeven land327VVland ,328,, let329VVlet alone330RBalone the331DTthe nationality332NNnationality of333INof anyone334NNanyone it335PPit might336MDmight hit337VVhit .338SENT. Second339JJsecond and340CCand as341RBas importantly342RBimportantly ,343,, for344INfor Petitioners345NNSpetitioner here346RBhere ,347,, it348PPit is349VBZbe Bivens350NPBivens or351CCor nothing352NNnothing .353SENT. Neither354DTneither Respondent355NNrespondent nor356CCnor the357DTthe United358NPUnited States359NPStates seriously360RBseriously disputes361VVZdispute that362IN/thatthat the363DTthe Westfall364NPWestfall Act365NPAct preempts366VVZpreempt the367DTthe Texas368NPTexas tort369NNtort remedy370NNremedy Petitioners371NNSpetitioner could372MDcould otherwise373RBotherwise have374VHhave pursued375VVNpursue ,376,, and377CCand neither378DTneither has379VHZhave identified380VVNidentify any381DTany other382JJother alternative383JJalternative remedy384NNremedy for385INfor the386DTthe Petitioners387NNSpetitioner here388RBhere as389RBas opposed390VVNoppose to391TOto other392JJother parties393NNSparty in394INin other395JJother cases396NNScase .397SENT. All398DTall of399INof this400DTthis goes401VVZgo to402TOto why403WRBwhy this404DTthis Court405NPCourt was406VBDbe right407JJright in408INin Abbasi409NPAbbasi when410WRBwhen it411PPit explained412VVDexplain that413IN/thatthat there414EXthere are415VBPbe powerful416JJpowerful reasons417NNSreason to418TOto retain419VVretain Bivens420NPBivens as421INas a422DTa remedy423NNremedy for424INfor individual425JJindividual instances426NNSinstance of427INof law428NNlaw enforcement429NNenforcement overreach430VVoverreach .431SENT. And432CCand it433PPit goes434VVZgo to435TOto why436WRBwhy ,437,, even438RBeven though439INthough Sergio440NPSergio was441VBDbe standing442VVGstand on443INon Mexican444JJMexican soil445NNsoil when446WRBwhen he447PPhe was448VBDbe shot449VVNshoot and450CCand killed451VVNkill ,452,, this453DTthis case454NNcase presents455VVZpresent the456DTthe exact457JJexact kind458NNkind of459INof law460NNlaw enforcement461NNenforcement overreach462VVPoverreach that463IN/thatthat Abbasi464NPAbbasi had465VHDhave in466INin mind467NNmind .468SENT. I469PPI think470VVPthink Abbasi471NPAbbasi is472VBZbe a473DTa useful474JJuseful place475NNplace to476TOto begin477VVbegin our478PP$our analysis479NNanalysis because480INbecause ,481,, in482INin that483DTthat case484NNcase ,485,, not486RBnot only487RBonly did488VVDdo this489DTthis Court490NPCourt suggest491VVPsuggest that492IN/thatthat there493EXthere were494VBDbe still495RBstill important496JJimportant reasons497NNSreason to498TOto retain499VVretain Bivens500NPBivens in501INin law502NNlaw enforcement503NNenforcement contexts504NNScontext ,505,, but506CCbut this507DTthis Court508NPCourt itself509PPitself actually510RBactually preserved511VVDpreserve and512CCand retained513VVDretain one514CDone of515INof the516DTthe plaintiffs517NNSplaintiff '518POS' Bivens519NPBivens claims520NNSclaim .521SENT. This522DTthis Court523NPCourt returned524VVDreturn to525TOto the526DTthe district527NNdistrict court528NNcourt ,529,, rather530RBrather than531INthan dismissing532VVGdismiss ,533,, the534DTthe prisoner535NNprisoner abuse536NNabuse claim537NNclaim against538INagainst the539DTthe warden540NNwarden of541INof the542DTthe MDC543NPMDC .544SENT. 2545CD2 And546CCand we547PPwe think548VVPthink that549WDTthat reflects550VVZreflect four551CDfour of552INof the553DTthe reasons554NNSreason why555WRBwhy retaining556VVGretain Bivens557NPBivens in558INin the559DTthe law560NNlaw enforcement561NNenforcement sphere562NNsphere makes563VVZmake sense564NNsense .565SENT. First566RBfirst ,567,, as568INas this569DTthis Court570NPCourt said571VVDsay in572INin Abbasi573NPAbbasi ,574,, it575PPit is576VBZbe difficult577JJdifficult to578TOto contemplate579VVcontemplate other580JJother remedies581NNSremedy when582WRBwhen individual583JJindividual instances584NNSinstance of585INof law586NNlaw enforcement587NNenforcement overreach588VVPoverreach are589VBPbe at590INat play591NNplay .592SENT. In593INin those594DTthose contexts595NNScontext ,596,, a597DTa damages598NNSdamage action599NNaction after600INafter the601DTthe fact602NNfact will603MDwill usually604RBusually be605VBbe the606DTthe only607RBonly possible608JJpossible legal609JJlegal recourse610NNrecourse .611SENT. It612PPit 's613VBZbe going614VVGgo to615TOto be616VBbe difficult617JJdifficult to618TOto bring619VVbring a620DTa claim621NNclaim in622INin advance623NNadvance .624SENT. Second625RBsecond ,626,, the627DTthe deterrence628NNdeterrence effect629NNeffect ,630,, what631WPwhat this632DTthis Court633NPCourt has634VHZhave called635VVNcall the636DTthe core637JJcore purpose638NNpurpose of639INof Bivens640NPBivens ,641,, which642WDTwhich is643VBZbe to644TOto deter645VVdeter individual646JJindividual officers647NNSofficer ,648,, could649MDcould quite650RBquite easily651RBeasily be652VBbe lost653VVNlose in654INin the655DTthe absence656NNabsence of657INof remedies658NNSremedy in659INin the660DTthe law661NNlaw enforcement662NNenforcement context663NNcontext ,664,, unlike665INunlike in666INin Abbasi667NPAbbasi ,668,, where669WRBwhere ,670,, as671INas this672DTthis Court673NPCourt stressed674VVDstress ,675,, there676EXthere were677VBDbe alternative678NNalternative remedies679NNSremedy available680JJavailable to681TOto the682DTthe plaintiffs683NNSplaintiff .684SENT. Third685JJthird ,686,, the687DTthe historical688JJhistorical tradition689NNtradition that690IN/thatthat we691PPwe note692VVPnote in693INin our694PP$our brief695NNbrief ,696,, where697WRBwhere federal698JJfederal courts699NNScourt and700CCand state701NNstate courts702NNScourt ,703,, going704VVGgo all705PDTall the706DTthe way707NNway back708RBback to709TOto the710DTthe founding711NNfounding ,712,, routinely713RBroutinely imposed714VVNimpose tort715NNtort damages716NNSdamage against717INagainst federal718JJfederal officers719NNSofficer acting720VVGact ultra721JJultra vires722NNSvire ,723,, without724INwithout suggesting725VVGsuggest there726EXthere were727VBDbe separation-of-powers728NNseparation-of-powers obstacles729NNSobstacle to730TOto doing731VVGdo so732RBso ,733,, without734INwithout suggesting735VVGsuggest that736IN/thatthat there737EXthere was738VBDbe anything739NNanything wrong740JJwrong with741INwith the742DTthe federal743JJfederal courts744NNScourt providing745VVGprovide a746DTa cause747NNcause of748INof action749NNaction in750INin those751DTthose cases752NNScase .753SENT. As754RBas opposed755VVNoppose to756TOto ,757,, I758PPI think759VVPthink ,760,, where761WRBwhere the762DTthe inquiry763NNinquiry historically764RBhistorically has765VHZhave focused766VVNfocus ,767,, immunity768NNimmunity .769SENT. Are770VBPbe there771RBthere reasons772NNSreason in773INin these774DTthese cases775NNScase to776TOto actually777RBactually hold778VVhold the779DTthe ...780:... the781DTthe defendant782NNdefendant officer783NNofficer harmless784JJharmless ,785,, not786RBnot because787INbecause there788EXthere 's789VBZbe no790DTno cause791NNcause of792INof action793NNaction but794CCbut because795INbecause he796PPhe was797VBDbe acting798VVGact in799INin good800JJgood faith801NNfaith or802CCor ,803,, under804INunder the805DTthe modern806JJmodern standard807NNstandard ,808,, because809INbecause he810PPhe did811VVDdo not812RBnot violate813VVviolate clearly814RBclearly established815VVNestablish rights816NNSright of817INof which818WDTwhich a819DTa reasonable820JJreasonable officer821NNofficer in822INin his823PP$his position824NNposition would825MDwould have826VHhave been827VBNbe aware828JJaware .829SENT. [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]830LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] They831PPthey argue832VVPargue ...833:... [JUSTICE ALITO]834LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] If835INif the836DTthe ...837:... [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]838LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] Go839VVgo ahead840RBahead .841SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]842LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] If843INif the844DTthe officer845NNofficer in846INin this847DTthis case848NNcase had849VHDhave been850VBNbe a851DTa state852NNstate officer853NNofficer and854CCand everything855NNeverything else856RBelse was857VBDbe the858DTthe same859JJsame ,860,, would861MDwould the862DTthe victim863NNvictim have864VHhave a865DTa claim866NNclaim in867INin federal868JJfederal court869NNcourt ?870SENT? [MR. VLADECK]871LOC[MR. VLADECK] So872RBso ,873,, if874INif the875DTthe question876NNquestion is877VBZbe in878INin federal879JJfederal court880NNcourt ,881,, Justice882NPJustice Alito883NPAlito ,884,, I885PPI think886VVPthink it887PPit would888MDwould depend889VVdepend on890INon diversity891NNdiversity .892SENT. I893PPI do894VVPdo n't895RBn't believe896VVbelieve the897DTthe victim898NNvictim would899MDwould be900VBbe able901JJable to902TOto bring903VVbring a904DTa claim905NNclaim under906INunder 1983907CD@card@ because908RBbecause ,909,, as910INas the911DTthe government912NNgovernment points913VVZpoint out914RPout ,915,, the916DTthe language917NNlanguage of918INof that919DTthat statute920NNstatute limits921VVZlimit the922DTthe class923NNclass of924INof plaintiffs925NNSplaintiff to926TOto U927NPU .928SENT. S929NPS .930SENT. citizens931NNScitizen and932CCand those933DTthose subject934NNsubject to935TOto the936DTthe jurisdiction937NNjurisdiction thereof938RBthereof .939SENT. But940CCbut ,941,, Justice942NPJustice Alito943NPAlito ,944,, Congress945NPCongress ,946,, when947WRBwhen it948PPit enacted949VVDenact 1983950CD@card@ ,951,, as952INas Judge953NPJudge Prado954NPPrado noted955VVDnote in956INin his957PP$his dissent958NNdissent below959RBbelow ,960,, was961VBDbe not962RBnot thinking963VVGthink about964INabout limiting965VVGlimit remedies966NNSremedy that967WDTthat were968VBDbe otherwise969RBotherwise available970JJavailable ;971:; it972PPit was973VBDbe thinking974VVGthink about975INabout expanding976VVGexpand remedies977NNSremedy ,978,, in979INin that980DTthat context981NNcontext in982INin 1871983CD@card@ ,984,, to985TOto newly986RBnewly freed987VVNfree slaves988NNSslave .989SENT. So990INso 1983991CD@card@ does992VVZdo nothing993NNnothing to994TOto displace995VVdisplace whatever996WDTwhatever state997NNstate tort998NNtort remedies999NNSremedy might1000MDmight be1001VBbe available1002JJavailable against1003INagainst state1004NNstate officers1005NNSofficer .1006SENT. Now1007RBnow ,1008,, of1009INof course1010NNcourse ,1011,, that1012WDTthat 's1013VBZbe going1014VVGgo to1015TOto vary1016VVvary a1017DTa bit1018NNbit .1019SENT. [JUSTICE GINSBURG]1020LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] Suppose1021VVPsuppose ...1022:... suppose1023VVPsuppose there1024EXthere were1025VBDbe no1026RBno 19831027CD@card@ ,1028,, and1029CCand a1030DTa state1031NNstate officer1032NNofficer had1033VHDhave done1034VVNdo exactly1035RBexactly what1036WPwhat the1037DTthe Bureau1038NPBureau of1039INof Narcotics1040NNSnarcotic agents1041NNSagent did1042VVDdo in1043INin Bivens1044NPBivens .1045SENT. Would1046MDwould there1047RBthere be1048VBbe an1049DTan action1050NNaction against1051INagainst the1052DTthe state1053NNstate officer1054NNofficer ?1055SENT? [MR. VLADECK]1056LOC[MR. VLADECK] There1057EXthere would1058MDwould be1059VBbe ,1060,, Justice1061NPJustice Ginsburg1062NPGinsburg .1063SENT. And1064CCand ,1065,, actually1066RBactually ,1067,, I1068PPI think1069VVPthink it1070PPit 's1071VBZbe worth1072JJworth in1073INin this1074DTthis context1075NNcontext reminding1076VVGremind the1077DTthe Court1078NNcourt of1079INof the1080DTthe government1081NNgovernment 's1082POS's position1083NNposition in1084INin Bivens1085NPBivens .1086SENT. The1087DTthe government1088NNgovernment 's1089POS's position1090NNposition in1091INin Bivens1092NPBivens itself1093PPitself was1094VBDbe not1095RBnot that1096IN/thatthat the1097DTthe federal1098JJfederal courts1099NNScourt should1100MDshould not1101RBnot be1102VBbe recognizing1103VVGrecognize these1104DTthese remedies1105NNSremedy in1106INin any1107DTany context1108NNcontext .1109SENT. Rather1110RBrather ,1111,, the1112DTthe government1113NNgovernment 's1114POS's position1115NNposition in1116INin Bivens1117NPBivens was1118VBDbe that1119IN/thatthat New1120NPNew York1121NPYork State1122NPState tort1123NNtort law1124NNlaw would1125MDwould have1126VHhave provided1127VVNprovide an1128DTan adequate1129JJadequate remedy1130NNremedy ,1131,, Justice1132NPJustice Ginsburg1133NPGinsburg ,1134,, not1135RBnot just1136RBjust against1137INagainst the1138DTthe federal1139JJfederal officer1140NNofficer defendants1141NNSdefendant in1142INin Bivens1143NPBivens but1144CCbut also1145RBalso had1146VHDhave they1147PPthey been1148VBNbe ,1149,, say1150VVsay ,1151,, New1152NPNew York1153NPYork City1154NPCity police1155NNpolice officers1156NNSofficer ,1157,, that1158WDTthat New1159NPNew York1160NPYork trespass1161NNtrespass law1162NNlaw would1163MDwould have1164VHhave provided1165VVNprovide the1166DTthe remedy1167NNremedy .1168SENT. To1169TOTo quote1170VVquote from1171INfrom the1172DTthe government1173NNgovernment 's1174POS's brief1175NNbrief in1176INin Bivens1177NPBivens ,1178,, a1179DTa federal1180JJfederal remedy1181NNremedy should1182MDshould only1183RBonly be1184VBbe recognized1185VVNrecognize when1186WRBwhen it1187PPit is1188VBZbe necessary1189JJnecessary .1190SENT. And1191CCand the1192DTthe argument1193NNargument in1194INin Bivens1195NPBivens was1196VBDbe simply1197RBsimply as1198INas to1199TOto whether1200INwhether a1201DTa complementary1202JJcomplementary federal1203JJfederal remedy1204NNremedy was1205VBDbe necessary1206JJnecessary to1207TOto vindicate1208VVvindicate the1209DTthe plaintiff1210NNplaintiff 's1211POS's Fourth1212JJfourth Amendment1213NPAmendment rights1214NNSright ,1215,, given1216VVNgive the1217DTthe existence1218NNexistence of1219INof New1220NPNew York1221NPYork trespass1222NNtrespass law1223NNlaw ,1224,, given1225VVNgive the1226DTthe government1227NNgovernment 's1228POS's argument1229NNargument that1230IN/thatthat New1231NPNew York1232NPYork trespass1233NNtrespass law1234NNlaw in1235INin that1236DTthat context1237NNcontext was1238VBDbe adequate1239JJadequate to1240TOto vindicate1241VVvindicate the1242DTthe plaintiff1243NNplaintiff 's1244POS's Fourth1245JJfourth Amendment1246NPAmendment interests1247NNSinterest .1248SENT. And1249CCand this1250DTthis was1251VBDbe the1252DTthe common1253JJcommon law1254NNlaw model1255NNmodel .1256SENT. I1257PPI mean1258VVPmean ,1259,, I1260PPI think1261VVPthink we1262PPwe are1263VBPbe all1264RBall familiar1265JJfamiliar with1266INwith Henry1267NPHenry Hart1268NPHart 's1269POS's dialectic1270NNdialectic where1271WRBwhere Professor1272NPProfessor Hart1273NPHart suggested1274VVDsuggest that1275IN/thatthat the1276DTthe original1277JJoriginal understanding1278NNunderstanding was1279VBDbe that1280IN/thatthat even1281RBeven federal1282JJfederal officers1283NNSofficer would1284MDwould be1285VBbe principally1286RBprincipally responsible1287JJresponsible to1288TOto judges1289NNSjudge in1290INin state1291NNstate court1292NNcourt .1293SENT. There1294EXthere was1295VBDbe no1296DTno general1297JJgeneral federal1298JJfederal question1299NNquestion statute1300NNstatute .1301SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]1302LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Your1303PP$your ...1304:... your1305PP$your ...1306:... you1307PPyou reference1308VVPreference the1309DTthe government1310NNgovernment 's1311POS's position1312NNposition in1313INin Bivens1314NPBivens .1315SENT. That1316DTthat was1317VBDbe almost1318RBalmost 501319CD@card@ years1320NNSyear ago1321RBago .1322SENT. In1323INin the1324DTthe interim1325NNinterim ,1326,, there1327EXthere 's1328VHZhave been1329VBNbe a1330DTa fairly1331RBfairly dramatic1332JJdramatic change1333NNchange in1334INin how1335WRBhow we1336PPwe approach1337VVPapproach things1338NNSthing as1339INas implying1340VVGimply causes1341NNScause of1342INof action1343NNaction ,1344,, both1345CCboth under1346INunder statutes1347NNSstatute and1348CCand under1349INunder Bivens1350NPBivens .1351SENT. I1352PPI mean1353VVPmean ,1354,, it1355PPit 's1356VHZhave been1357VBNbe ,1358,, what1359WPwhat ,1360,, 401361CD@card@ years1362NNSyear ,1363,, right1364RBright ,1365,, since1366INsince the1367DTthe last1368JJlast time1369NNtime we1370PPwe recognized1371VVDrecognize a1372DTa cause1373NNcause of1374INof action1375NNaction in1376INin Bivens1377NPBivens ?1378SENT? So1379INso I1380PPI ...1381:... I1382PPI ...1383:... I1384PPI think1385VVPthink you1386PPyou need1387VVPneed to1388TOto sort1389VVsort of1390INof move1391NNmove up1392INup half1393PDThalf a1394DTa century1395NNcentury and1396CCand explain1397VVexplain to1398TOto us1399PPus why1400WRBwhy we1401PPwe should1402MDshould take1403VVtake your1404PP$your ...1405:... your1406PP$your approach1407NNapproach today1408NNtoday regardless1409RBregardless of1410INof what1411WPwhat the1412DTthe ...1413:... the1414DTthe prevailing1415JJprevailing legal1416JJlegal regime1417NNregime was1418VBDbe in1419INin '1420''' 711421CD@card@ .1422SENT. [MR. VLADECK]1423LOC[MR. VLADECK] I1424PPI take1425VVPtake the1426DTthe point1427NNpoint ,1428,, Mr1429NPMr .1430SENT. Chief1431NPChief Justice1432NPJustice ,1433,, and1434CCand if1435INif I1436PPI may1437MDmay offer1438VVoffer two1439CDtwo points1440NNSpoint in1441INin response1442NNresponse .1443SENT. The1444DTthe first1445JJfirst is1446VBZbe I1447PPI say1448VVPsay all1449DTall of1450INof this1451DTthis by1452INby way1453NNway of1454INof putting1455VVGput Bivens1456NPBivens in1457INin context1458NNcontext .1459SENT. That1460DTthat is1461VBZbe to1462TOto say1463VVsay that1464IN/thatthat ,1465,, rather1466RBrather than1467INthan a1468DTa bolt1469NNbolt from1470INfrom the1471DTthe blue1472NNblue ,1473,, Bivens1474NPBivens was1475VBDbe a1476DTa continuation1477NNcontinuation of1478INof this1479DTthis tradition1480NNtradition .1481SENT. But1482CCbut ,1483,, to1484TOto ...1485:... to1486TOto wind1487VVwind the1488DTthe clock1489NNclock forward1490RBforward ,1491,, which1492WDTwhich I1493PPI think1494VVPthink is1495VBZbe ,1496,, of1497INof course1498NNcourse ,1499,, the1500DTthe ...1501:... the1502DTthe task1503NNtask for1504INfor the1505DTthe Court1506NPCourt today1507NNtoday ,1508,, I1509PPI think1510VVPthink it1511PPit 's1512VBZbe worth1513JJworth stressing1514VVGstress that1515IN/thatthat ,1516,, of1517INof the1518DTthe nine1519CDnine cases1520NNScase this1521DTthis Court1522NPCourt has1523VHZhave decided1524VVNdecide since1525INsince Carlson1526NPCarlson ,1527,, which1528WDTwhich the1529DTthe government1530NNgovernment points1531VVZpoint out1532RPout at1533INat page1534NNpage 111535CD@card@ of1536INof its1537PP$its amicus1538NNamicus brief1539NNbrief ,1540,, where1541WRBwhere this1542DTthis Court1543NPCourt has1544VHZhave had1545VHNhave the1546DTthe opportunity1547NNopportunity to1548TOto recognize1549VVrecognize a1550DTa Bivens1551NPBivens remedy1552NNremedy and1553CCand has1554VHZhave chosen1555VVNchoose not1556RBnot to1557TOto do1558VVdo so1559RBso ,1560,, none1561NNnone of1562INof those1563DTthose involved1564VVNinvolve a1565DTa claim1566NNclaim that1567IN/thatthat an1568DTan individual1569JJindividual federal1570JJfederal law1571NNlaw enforcement1572NNenforcement officer1573NNofficer was1574VBDbe acting1575VVGact ultra1576JJultra vires1577NNSvire .1578SENT. None1579NNnone of1580INof the1581DTthe suits1582NNSsuit involved1583VVDinvolve the1584DTthe kind1585NNkind of1586INof claim1587NNclaim we1588PPwe have1589VHPhave here1590RBhere .1591SENT. None1592NNnone of1593INof the1594DTthe suits1595NNSsuit involved1596VVDinvolve the1597DTthe context1598NNcontext in1599INin which1600WDTwhich this1601DTthis historical1602JJhistorical tradition1603NNtradition was1604VBDbe at1605INat its1606PP$its richest1607JJSrich ,1608,, Mr1609NPMr .1610SENT. Chief1611NPChief Justice1612NPJustice .1613SENT. None1614NNnone of1615INof the1616DTthe suits1617NNSsuit or1618CCor at1619INat least1620JJSleast not1621RBnot all1622RBall of1623INof the1624DTthe cases1625NNScase even1626RBeven involved1627VVNinvolve claims1628NNSclaim that1629WDTthat would1630MDwould have1631VHhave had1632VHNhave a1633DTa common1634JJcommon law1635NNlaw parallel1636NNparallel .1637SENT. And1638CCand so1639RBso we1640PPwe certainly1641RBcertainly recognize1642VVPrecognize that1643IN/thatthat this1644DTthis Court1645NPCourt has1646VHZhave been1647VBNbe increasingly1648RBincreasingly skeptical1649JJskeptical of1650INof judge-made1651JJjudge-made causes1652NNScause of1653INof action1654NNaction in1655INin general1656JJgeneral and1657CCand of1658INof Bivens1659NPBivens in1660INin particular1661JJparticular .1662SENT. Our1663PP$our point1664NNpoint is1665VBZbe simply1666RBsimply that1667IN/thatthat that1668DTthat skepticism1669NNskepticism has1670VHZhave been1671VBNbe reserved1672VVNreserve or1673CCor at1674INat least1675JJSleast focused1676VVNfocus on1677INon categories1678NNScategory unlike1679INunlike this1680DTthis one1681CDone .1682SENT. [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]1683LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] If1684INif Bivens1685NPBivens were1686VBDbe a1687DTa statute1688NNstatute ,1689,, in1690INin effect1691NNeffect ,1692,, we1693PPwe would1694MDwould apply1695VVapply the1696DTthe presumption1697NNpresumption against1698INagainst extraterritorial1699JJextraterritorial application1700NNapplication .1701SENT. And1702CCand the1703DTthe other1704JJother side1705NNside argues1706VVZargue that1707IN/thatthat ,1708,, therefore1709RBtherefore ,1710,, even1711RBeven if1712INif it1713PPit were1714VBDbe a1715DTa statute1716NNstatute ,1717,, it1718PPit would1719MDwould n't1720RBn't apply1721VVapply in1722INin a1723DTa circumstance1724NNcircumstance like1725INlike this1726DTthis .1727SENT. What1728WPWhat 's1729VBZbe your1730PP$your answer1731NNanswer to1732TOto that1733DTthat ?1734SENT? [MR. VLADECK]1735LOC[MR. VLADECK] Well1736UHwell ,1737,, I1738PPI think1739VVPthink we1740PPwe have1741VHPhave two1742CDtwo answers1743NNSanswer ,1744,, Justice1745NPJustice Kavanaugh1746NPKavanaugh .1747SENT. And1748CCand I1749PPI think1750VVPthink the1751DTthe ...1752:... the1753DTthe first1754JJfirst and1755CCand most1756RBSmost important1757JJimportant is1758VBZbe that1759IN/thatthat but1760CCbut Bivens1761NPBivens is1762VBZbe not1763RBnot a1764DTa statute1765NNstatute and1766CCand that1767IN/thatthat this1768DTthis Court1769NPCourt has1770VHZhave never1771RBnever suggested1772VVNsuggest ,1773,, for1774INfor example1775NNexample ,1776,, that1777WDTthat in1778INin looking1779VVGlook at1780INat whether1781INwhether particular1782JJparticular constitutional1783JJconstitutional provisions1784NNSprovision apply1785VVPapply extraterritorially1786RBextraterritorially ,1787,, we1788PPwe would1789MDwould use1790VVuse any1791DTany of1792INof the1793DTthe typical1794JJtypical presumptions1795NNSpresumption that1796IN/thatthat we1797PPwe apply1798VVPapply to1799TOto statutes1800NNSstatute because1801INbecause it1802PPit is1803VBZbe a1804DTa fundamentally1805RBfundamentally different1806JJdifferent task1807NNtask from1808INfrom the1809DTthe perspective1810NNperspective of1811INof looking1812VVGlook at1813INat the1814DTthe extent1815NNextent to1816TOto which1817WDTwhich the1818DTthe Constitution1819NPConstitution applies1820VVZapply overseas1821RBoverseas versus1822INversus what1823WPwhat Congress1824NPCongress would1825MDwould have1826VHhave intended1827VVNintend .1828SENT. But1829CCbut even1830RBeven if1831INif this1832DTthis Court1833NPCourt ,1834,, nevertheless1835RBnevertheless ,1836,, believes1837VVZbelieve that1838IN/thatthat it1839PPit 's1840VBZbe appropriate1841JJappropriate to1842TOto map1843VVmap on1844INon that1845DTthat presumption1846NNpresumption ,1847,, I1848PPI actually1849RBactually think1850VVPthink Kiobel1851NPKiobel helps1852VVZhelp us1853PPus more1854JJRmore than1855INthan it1856PPit hurts1857VVZhurt us1858PPus ,1859,, because1860RBbecause ,1861,, in1862INin Kiobel1863NPKiobel ,1864,, this1865DTthis Court1866NPCourt said1867VVDsay there1868EXthere will1869MDwill still1870RBstill be1871VBbe cases1872NNScase in1873INin which1874WDTwhich the1875DTthe ...1876:... the1877DTthe underlying1878VVGunderlie conduct1879NNconduct ,1880,, the1881DTthe gravamen1882NNgravamen of1883INof the1884DTthe plaintiff1885NNplaintiff 's1886POS's complaint1887NNcomplaint ,1888,, involves1889VVZinvolve activity1890NNactivity that1891IN/thatthat touches1892NNStouch and1893CCand concerns1894NNSconcern U1895NPU .1896SENT. S1897NPS .1898SENT. soil1899NNsoil with1900INwith sufficient1901JJsufficient force1902NNforce to1903TOto displace1904VVdisplace the1905DTthe presumption1906NNpresumption against1907INagainst extraterritoriality1908NNextraterritoriality .1909SENT. And1910CCand so1911RBso I1912PPI think1913VVPthink this1914DTthis Court1915NPCourt could1916MDcould assume1917VVassume without1918INwithout deciding1919VVGdecide that1920DTthat extraterritoriality1921NNextraterritoriality is1922VBZbe a1923DTa special1924JJspecial factor1925NNfactor for1926INfor purposes1927NNSpurpose of1928INof Bivens1929NPBivens and1930CCand still1931RBstill say1932VVPsay this1933DTthis case1934NNcase is1935VBZbe different1936JJdifferent because1937INbecause Respondent1938NNrespondent was1939VBDbe standing1940VVGstand on1941INon U1942NPU .1943SENT. S1944NPS .1945SENT. soil1946NNsoil at1947INat the1948DTthe time1949NNtime he1950PPhe pulled1951VVDpull the1952DTthe trigger1953NNtrigger ,1954,, that1955WDTthat is1956VBZbe touching1957VVGtouch and1958CCand concerning1959VVGconcern U1960NPU .1961SENT. S1962NPS .1963SENT. territory1964NNterritory from1965INfrom my1966PP$my perspective1967NNperspective the1968DTthe way1969NNway Kiobel1970NPKiobel meant1971VVDmean it1972PPit .1973SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]1974LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] What1975WPWhat would1976MDwould distinguish1977VVdistinguish ...1978:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]1979LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] But1980CCbut the1981DTthe ...1982:... the1983DTthe ...1984:... the1985DTthe victim1986NNvictim ,1987,, Hernandez1988NPHernandez ,1989,, this1990DTthis Court1991NPCourt has1992VHZhave ...1993:... has1994VHZhave said1995VVNsay ,1996,, I1997PPI think1998VVPthink ,1999,, that2000IN/thatthat a2001DTa non-citizen2002NNnon-citizen who2003WPwho 's2004VBZbe injured2005VVNinjure abroad2006RBabroad does2007VVZdo n't2008RBn't have2009VHhave any2010DTany Fourth2011JJfourth Amendment2012NPAmendment rights2013NNSright .2014SENT. So2015RBso what2016WPwhat is2017VBZbe ...2018:... it2019PPit seems2020VVZseem like2021INlike a2022DTa rather2023RBrather arid2024JJarid discussion2025NNdiscussion if2026INif ,2027,, at2028INat the2029DTthe end2030NNend of2031INof the2032DTthe day2033NNday ,2034,, there2035EXthere is2036VBZbe no2037DTno federal2038JJfederal constitutional2039JJconstitutional right2040NNright that2041WDTthat can2042MDcan be2043VBbe asserted2044VVNassert by2045INby a2046DTa non-citizen2047NNnon-citizen who2048WPwho is2049VBZbe injured2050VVNinjure abroad2051RBabroad .2052SENT. [MR. VLADECK]2053LOC[MR. VLADECK] So2054INso I2055PPI think2056VVPthink ...2057:... I2058PPI think2059VVPthink ,2060,, Justice2061NPJustice Ginsburg2062NPGinsburg ,2063,, that2064WDTthat Verdugo2065NPVerdugo certainly2066RBcertainly stands2067VVZstand for2068INfor the2069DTthe proposition2070NNproposition that2071IN/thatthat in2072INin that2073DTthat case2074NNcase there2075EXthere was2076VBDbe no2077DTno Fourth2078JJfourth Amendment2079NPAmendment protection2080NNprotection for2081INfor a2082DTa Mexican2083JJMexican national2084NNnational whose2085WP$whose home2086NNhome was2087VBDbe searched2088VVNsearch by2089INby DEA2090NPDEA agents2091NNSagent operating2092VVGoperate in2093INin conjunction2094NNconjunction with2095INwith the2096DTthe Mexican2097JJMexican government2098NNgovernment .2099SENT. I2100PPI think2101VVPthink this2102DTthis Court2103NNcourt itself2104PPitself suggested2105VVDsuggest in2106INin Hernandez2107NPHernandez I2108NPI ,2109,, two2110CDtwo years2111NNSyear ago2112RBago ,2113,, that2114IN/thatthat the2115DTthe Fourth2116JJfourth Amendment2117NPAmendment question2118NNquestion in2119INin the2120DTthe context2121NNcontext of2122INof a2123DTa cross-border2124JJcross-border shooting2125NNshooting is2126VBZbe more2127RBRmore complicated2128JJcomplicated ,2129,, and2130CCand it2131PPit is2132VBZbe the2133DTthe fact2134NNfact that2135IN/thatthat that2136DTthat question2137NNquestion is2138VBZbe unsettled2139VVNunsettle ...2140:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2141LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Well2142UHWell ,2143,, what2144WDTwhat ...2145:... [MR. VLADECK]2146LOC[MR. VLADECK] ...2147:... that2148WDTthat is2149VBZbe ...2150:... sorry2151JJsorry .2152SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2153LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] ...2154:... what2155WPwhat ...2156:... this2157DTthis is2158VBZbe my2159PP$my question2160NNquestion ,2161,, too2162RBtoo .2163SENT. I2164PPI want2165VVPwant to2166TOto pick2167VVpick up2168RPup on2169INon Justice2170NPJustice Ginsburg2171NPGinsburg .2172SENT. What2173WPWhat ...2174:... what2175WPwhat then2176RBthen is2177VBZbe the2178DTthe limiting2179VVGlimit principle2180NNprinciple ?2181SENT? We2182PPwe have2183VHPhave a2184DTa foreign2185JJforeign national2186JJnational injured2187VVNinjure abroad2188RBabroad by2189INby an2190DTan action2191NNaction in2192INin the2193DTthe United2194NPUnited States2195NPSStates .2196SENT. I2197PPI can2198MDcan think2199VVthink of2200INof a2201DTa lot2202NNlot of2203INof cases2204NNScase that2205IN/thatthat that2206DTthat 's2207VBZbe going2208VVGgo to2209TOto encompass2210VVencompass ,2211,, right2212RBright ?2213SENT? And2214CCand not2215RBnot just2216RBjust cross-border2217JJcross-border shootings2218NNSshooting but2219CCbut all2220DTall kinds2221NNSkind of2222INof torts2223NNStort that2224WDTthat can2225MDcan occur2226VVoccur transnationally2227RBtransnationally .2228SENT. Would2229MDwould you2230PPyou capture2231VVcapture all2232DTall of2233INof those2234DTthose or2235CCor ...2236:... or2237CCor ...2238:... [MR. VLADECK]2239LOC[MR. VLADECK] Not2240RBnot at2241INat all2242DTall ,2243,, Justice2244NPJustice Gorsuch2245NPGorsuch .2246SENT. And2247CCand as2248INas I2249PPI hope2250VVPhope was2251VBDbe clear2252JJclear ...2253:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2254LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] It2255PPit can2256MDcan 't2257RB't ...2258:... it2259PPit can2260MDcan 't2261RB't be2262VBbe that2263IN/thatthat this2264DTthis is2265VBZbe good2266JJgood for2267INfor one2268CDone shooting2269NNshooting only2270RBonly ,2271,, right2272RBright ?2273SENT? [MR. VLADECK]2274LOC[MR. VLADECK] No2275NPNo .2276SENT. And2277CCand ,2278,, first2279RBfirst ,2280,, I2281PPI mean2282VVPmean ,2283,, I2284PPI think2285VVPthink ...2286:... I2287PPI think2288VVPthink this2289DTthis Court2290NPCourt is2291VBZbe well2292RBwell aware2293JJaware that2294IN/thatthat there2295EXthere 's2296VHZhave been2297VBNbe more2298JJRmore than2299INthan one2300CDone shooting2301NNshooting ,2302,, so2303RBso ...2304:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2305LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] I2306PPI understand2307VVPunderstand that2308RBthat .2309SENT. [MR. VLADECK]2310LOC[MR. VLADECK] But2311CCbut ...2312:... but2313CCbut no2314UHno ,2315,, I2316PPI mean2317VVPmean ,2318,, I2319PPI think2320VVPthink the2321DTthe ...2322:... the2323DTthe larger2324JJRlarge point2325NNpoint is2326VBZbe our2327PP$our position2328NNposition focuses2329VVZfocus on2330INon the2331DTthe law2332NNlaw enforcement2333NNenforcement nature2334NNnature of2335INof the2336DTthe conduct2337NNconduct at2338INat issue2339NNissue here2340RBhere .2341SENT. And2342CCand so2343RBso many2344JJmany of2345INof the2346DTthe hypotheticals2347NNShypotheticals that2348WDTthat I2349PPI suspect2350VVPsuspect you2351PPyou are2352VBPbe thinking2353VVGthink of2354INof ,2355,, Your2356PP$your Honor2357NPHonor ,2358,, that2359WDTthat I2360PPI 'd2361MDwould be2362VBbe thinking2363VVGthink of2364INof ,2365,, for2366INfor a2367DTa context2368NNcontext in2369INin which2370WDTwhich a2371DTa U2372NPU .2373SENT. S2374NPS .2375SENT. government2376NNgovernment person2377NNperson in2378INin the2379DTthe United2380NPUnited States2381NPSStates could2382MDcould ...2383:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2384LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Why2385WRBwhy would2386MDwould it2387PPit be2388VBbe limited2389VVNlimit to2390TOto law2391NNlaw enforcement2392NNenforcement as2393RBas opposed2394VVNoppose to2395TOto other2396JJother governmental2397JJgovernmental functions2398NNSfunction that2399WDTthat happen2400VVPhappen here2401RBhere but2402CCbut happen2403VVhappen to2404TOto injure2405VVinjure persons2406NNSperson abroad2407RBabroad ?2408SENT? [MR. VLADECK]2409LOC[MR. VLADECK] Because2410INbecause I2411PPI think2412VVPthink it2413PPit 's2414VBZbe in2415INin the2416DTthe law2417NNlaw enforcement2418NNenforcement context2419NNcontext that2420IN/thatthat there2421EXthere is2422VBZbe the2423DTthe strongest2424JJSstrong argument2425NNargument ,2426,, the2427DTthe strongest2428JJSstrong appeal2429NNappeal to2430TOto the2431DTthe historical2432JJhistorical tradition2433NNtradition we2434PPwe note2435VVPnote in2436INin our2437PP$our briefs2438NNSbrief ,2439,, where2440WRBwhere there2441EXthere is2442VBZbe a2443DTa straight2444JJstraight line2445NNline dating2446VVGdate all2447PDTall the2448DTthe way2449NNway back2450RBback to2451TOto the2452DTthe founding2453NNfounding where2454WRBwhere it2455PPit was2456VBDbe law2457NNlaw enforcement2458NNenforcement ,2459,, where2460WRBwhere common2461JJcommon law2462NNlaw remedies2463NNSremedy against2464INagainst federal2465JJfederal officers2466NNSofficer were2467VBDbe so2468RBso important2469JJimportant .2470SENT. There2471EXthere are2472VBPbe n't2473RBn't many2474JJmany examples2475NNSexample ,2476,, I2477PPI could2478MDcould find2479VVfind none2480NNnone ,2481,, of2482INof combat2483NNcombat operations2484NNSoperation ,2485,, for2486INfor example2487NNexample ,2488,, where2489WRBwhere state2490NNstate courts2491NNScourt were2492VBDbe imposing2493VVGimpose tort2494NNtort remedies2495NNSremedy against2496INagainst federal2497JJfederal officers2498NNSofficer .2499SENT. [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2500LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] So2501INso you2502PPyou 'd2503MDwould have2504VHhave us2505PPus ...2506:... you2507PPyou 'd2508MDwould draw2509VVdraw a2510DTa line2511NNline there2512RBthere ,2513,, actively2514RBactively in2515INin this2516DTthis case2517NNcase and2518CCand say2519VVPsay that2520IN/thatthat any2521DTany ...2522:... any2523DTany actions2524NNSaction involving2525VVGinvolve military2526JJmilitary operations2527NNSoperation ,2528,, diplomatic2529JJdiplomatic operations2530NNSoperation ,2531,, any2532DTany other2533JJother operations2534NNSoperation of2535INof government2536NNgovernment are2537VBPbe not2538RBnot ...2539:... there2540RBthere ...2541:... there2542EXthere 's2543VBZbe no2544DTno Bivens2545NPBivens action2546NNaction there2547RBthere ,2548,, it2549PPit 's2550VBZbe only2551RBonly for2552INfor law2553NNlaw enforcement2554NNenforcement ,2555,, whatever2556WDTwhatever that2557RBthat means2558VVZmean ,2559,, operations2560NNSoperation ?2561SENT? [MR. VLADECK]2562LOC[MR. VLADECK] So2563RBso ,2564,, I2565PPI mean2566VVPmean ,2567,, I2568PPI ...2569:... obviously2570RBobviously ,2571,, I2572PPI would2573MDwould n't2574RBn't decide2575VVdecide more2576RBRmore than2577INthan is2578VBZbe necessary2579JJnecessary .2580SENT. But2581CCbut I2582PPI do2583VVPdo think2584VVthink ...2585:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2586LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Ah2587UHah ,2588,, ah2589NPah ,2590,, okay2591JJokay .2592SENT. That2593DTthat 's2594VBZbe what2595WPwhat ...2596:... that2597WDTthat 's2598VBZbe what2599WPwhat I2600PPI thought2601VVDthink you2602PPyou 'd2603MDwould say2604VVsay .2605SENT. [MR. VLADECK]2606LOC[MR. VLADECK] But2607CCbut ...2608:... but2609CCbut ,2610,, Justice2611NPJustice Gorsuch2612NPGorsuch ...2613:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2614LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] All2615DTall right2616NNright .2617SENT. And2618CCand so2619RBso ...2620:... so2621RBso where2622WRBwhere is2623VBZbe ,2624,, if2625INif ...2626:... if2627INif you2628PPyou 're2629VBPbe not2630RBnot willing2631JJwilling to2632TOto draw2633VVdraw that2634DTthat line2635NNline ,2636,, where2637WRBwhere is2638VBZbe it2639PPit ?2640SENT? And2641CCand how2642WRBhow is2643VBZbe this2644DTthis Court2645NNcourt supposed2646VVNsuppose to2647TOto draw2648VVdraw it2649PPit ?2650SENT? You2651PPyou ...2652:... you2653PPyou say2654VVPsay ...2655:... you2656PPyou say2657VVPsay you2658PPyou could2659MDcould say2660VVsay this2661DTthis ,2662,, but2663CCbut I2664PPI would2665MDwould n't2666RBn't say2667VVsay it2668PPit .2669SENT. All2670DTall right2671NNright .2672SENT. [MR. VLADECK]2673LOC[MR. VLADECK] I2674PPI ...2675:... I2676PPI ...2677:... I2678PPI ...2679:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2680LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] Where2681WRBwhere would2682MDwould you2683PPyou draw2684VVdraw the2685DTthe line2686NNline ?2687SENT? [MR. VLADECK]2688LOC[MR. VLADECK] I2689PPI think2690VVPthink ...2691:... I2692PPI think2693VVPthink based2694VVNbase on2695INon this2696DTthis Court2697NPCourt 's2698POS's jurisprudence2699NNjurisprudence ,2700,, and2701CCand based2702VVNbase on2703INon Abbasi2704NPAbbasi itself2705PPitself ,2706,, I2707PPI think2708VVPthink the2709DTthe line2710NNline could2711MDcould reasonably2712RBreasonably ,2713,, plausibly2714RBplausibly ,2715,, and2716CCand ...2717:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2718LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] No2719UHNo ,2720,, no2721UHno ,2722,, not2723RBnot reasonably2724RBreasonably ,2725,, plausibly2726RBplausibly .2727SENT. Where2728WRBwhere would2729MDwould you2730PPyou have2731VHhave this2732DTthis Court2733NPCourt draw2734VVdraw the2735DTthe line2736NNline ?2737SENT? [MR. VLADECK]2738LOC[MR. VLADECK] Well2739UHwell ,2740,, I2741PPI think2742VVPthink ,2743,, frankly2744RBfrankly ,2745,, there2746EXthere are2747VBPbe decisions2748NNSdecision this2749DTthis Court2750NPCourt has2751VHZhave handed2752VVNhand down2753RPdown in2754INin the2755DTthe Bivens2756NPBivens context2757NNcontext that2758IN/thatthat I2759PPI think2760VVPthink do2761VVdo n't2762RBn't necessarily2763RBnecessarily ...2764:... are2765VBPbe n't2766RBn't necessarily2767RBnecessarily consistent2768JJconsistent with2769INwith this2770DTthis full2771JJfull tradition2772NNtradition .2773SENT. But2774CCbut it2775PPit has2776VHZhave still2777RBstill left2778VVNleave open2779JJopen law2780NNlaw enforcement2781NNenforcement conduct2782NNconduct ,2783,, Justice2784NPJustice Gorsuch2785NPGorsuch .2786SENT. And2787CCand it2788PPit 's2789VBZbe not2790RBnot just2791RBjust this2792DTthis Court2793NNcourt that2794WDTthat has2795VHZhave done2796VVNdo that2797DTthat .2798SENT. Congress2799NPCongress ,2800,, in2801INin the2802DTthe 19742803CD@card@ amendment2804NNamendment to2805TOto the2806DTthe Federal2807NPFederal Tort2808NPTort Claims2809NPSClaims Act2810NPAct ,2811,, went2812VVDgo out2813RPout of2814INof its2815PP$its way2816NNway to2817TOto expand2818VVexpand the2819DTthe liability2820NNliability of2821INof the2822DTthe United2823NPUnited States2824NPSStates for2825INfor intentional2826JJintentional torts2827NNStort committed2828VVNcommit by2829INby law2830NNlaw enforcement2831NNenforcement officers2832NNSofficer .2833SENT. [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]2834LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] Well2835UHWell ...2836:... [JUSTICE GORSUCH]2837LOC[JUSTICE GORSUCH] They2838PPthey are2839VBPbe ...2840:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]2841LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] ...2842:... but2843CCbut I2844PPI ...2845:... it2846PPit 's2847VBZbe not2848RBnot just2849RBjust intentional2850JJintentional torts2851NNStort .2852SENT. It2853PPit 's2854VBZbe rogue2855NNrogue intentional2856JJintentional torts2857NNStort .2858SENT. That2859DTthat 's2860VBZbe an2861DTan important2862JJimportant limiting2863VVGlimit principle2864NNprinciple .2865SENT. [MR. VLADECK]2866LOC[MR. VLADECK] It2867PPit absolutely2868RBabsolutely is2869VBZbe ,2870,, Justice2871NPJustice Sotomayor2872NPSotomayor .2873SENT. And2874CCand I2875PPI hope2876VVPhope it2877PPit 's2878VBZbe clear2879JJclear in2880INin our2881PP$our briefs2882NNSbrief ...2883:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]2884LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] And2885CCand accepting2886VVGaccept the2887DTthe facts2888NNSfact of2889INof this2890DTthis case2891NNcase ,2892,, the2893DTthe use2894NNuse of2895INof force2896NNforce is2897VBZbe on2898INon U2899NPU .2900SENT. S2901NPS .2902SENT. land2903NNland and2904CCand it2905PPit 's2906VBZbe unreasonable2907JJunreasonable because2908INbecause the2909DTthe claim2910NNclaim is2911VBZbe that2912IN/thatthat this2913DTthis young2914JJyoung man2915NNman was2916VBDbe doing2917VVGdo nothing2918NNnothing but2919CCbut standing2920NNstanding on2921INon the2922DTthe other2923JJother side2924NNside of2925INof the2926DTthe border2927NNborder .2928SENT. [MR. VLADECK]2929LOC[MR. VLADECK] And2930CCand I2931PPI think2932VVPthink this2933DTthis might2934MDmight be2935VBbe a2936DTa ...2937:... a2938DTa ...2939:... sort2940NNsort of2941INof a2942DTa more2943RBRmore convincing2944JJconvincing answer2945NNanswer ,2946,, I2947PPI hope2948VVPhope ,2949,, to2950TOto Justice2951NPJustice Gorsuch2952NPGorsuch ,2953,, which2954WDTwhich is2955VBZbe I2956PPI do2957VVPdo believe2958VVbelieve that2959IN/thatthat it2960PPit is2961VBZbe relevant2962JJrelevant to2963TOto the2964DTthe claim2965NNclaim and2966CCand the2967DTthe strength2968NNstrength of2969INof our2970PP$our claim2971NNclaim in2972INin this2973DTthis case2974NNcase that2975IN/thatthat the2976DTthe Respondent2977NNrespondent was2978VBDbe ,2979,, according2980VVGaccord to2981TOto the2982DTthe plausible2983JJplausible allegations2984NNSallegation in2985INin the2986DTthe plaintiff2987NNplaintiff 's2988POS's complaint2989NNcomplaint ,2990,, violating2991VVGviolate not2992RBnot just2993RBjust the2994DTthe Constitution2995NPConstitution but2996CCbut his2997PP$his own2998JJown departmental2999JJdepartmental regulations3000NNSregulation ,3001,, that3002WDTthat we3003PPwe have3004VHPhave not3005RBnot just3006RBjust a3007DTa law3008NNlaw enforcement3009NNenforcement officer3010NNofficer ,3011,, Justice3012NPJustice Gorsuch3013NPGorsuch ,3014,, but3015CCbut a3016DTa law3017NNlaw enforcement3018NNenforcement officer3019NNofficer acting3020VVGact ultra3021JJultra vires3022NNSvire .3023SENT. [JUSTICE BREYER]3024LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] Are3025VBPbe we3026PPwe supposed3027VVNsuppose to3028TOto decide3029VVdecide this3030DTthis ?3031SENT? I3032PPI mean3033VVPmean ,3034,, I3035PPI thought3036VVDthink ...3037:... I3038PPI wrote3039VVDwrite a3040DTa dissent3041NNdissent ,3042,, I3043PPI guess3044VVPguess ,3045,, but3046CCbut I3047PPI thought3048VVDthink this3049DTthis is3050VBZbe special3051JJspecial because3052INbecause it3053PPit 's3054POS's American3055JJAmerican law3056NNlaw enforcement3057NNenforcement ,3058,, American3059JJAmerican soil3060NNsoil ,3061,, and3062CCand he3063PPhe thought3064VVDthink he3065PPhe might3066MDmight be3067VBbe shooting3068VVGshoot at3069INat an3070DTan American3071JJAmerican ,3072,, and3073CCand the3074DTthe ...3075:... the3076DTthe border3077NNborder in3078INin this3079DTthis case3080NNcase is3081VBZbe rather3082RBrather special3083JJspecial ,3084,, it3085PPit 's3086VBZbe not3087RBnot just3088RBjust the3089DTthe line3090NNline ,3091,, it3092PPit was3093VBDbe the3094DTthe river3095NNriver ,3096,, and3097CCand it3098PPit 's3099VBZbe administered3100VVNadminister by3101INby an3102DTan international3103JJinternational commission3104NNcommission ,3105,, dah-dah-dah3106NNdah-dah-dah ,3107,, okay3108RBokay ,3109,, I3110PPI have3111VHPhave about3112RBabout six3113CDsix wonderful3114JJwonderful reasons3115NNSreason that3116WDTthat persuaded3117VVDpersuade only3118RBonly me3119PPme .3120SENT. Okay3121JJokay .3122SENT. But3123CCbut the3124DTthe ...3125:... [3126SYM[ LAUGHTER3127NNlaughter ]3128SYM] [JUSTICE BREYER]3129LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] Or3130CCor now3131RBnow ...3132:... now3133RBnow ...3134:... [MR. VLADECK]3135LOC[MR. VLADECK] I3136PPI believe3137VVPbelieve you3138PPyou also3139RBalso persuaded3140VVDpersuade ...3141:... [JUSTICE BREYER]3142LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] ...3143:... I3144PPI thought3145VVDthink we3146PPwe 're3147VBPbe taking3148VVGtake this3149DTthis case3150NNcase on3151INon the3152DTthe assumption3153NNassumption that3154IN/thatthat the3155DTthe Fourth3156JJfourth Amendment3157NPAmendment does3158VVZdo apply3159VVapply ,3160,, and3161CCand the3162DTthe only3163JJonly issue3164NNissue in3165INin front3166NNfront of3167INof us3168PPus is3169VBZbe not3170RBnot that3171IN/thatthat but3172CCbut ,3173,, rather3174RBrather ,3175,, we3176PPwe assume3177VVPassume that3178IN/thatthat the3179DTthe Fourth3180JJfourth Amendment3181NPAmendment applied3182VVDapply ,3183,, that3184IN/thatthat it3185PPit is3186VBZbe a3187DTa clear3188JJclear violation3189NNviolation of3190INof the3191DTthe Fourth3192JJfourth Amendment3193NPAmendment ,3194,, and3195CCand the3196DTthe question3197NNquestion is3198VBZbe Abbasi3199NPAbbasi ,3200,, whether3201INwhether there3202EXthere is3203VBZbe a3204DTa Bivens3205NPBivens action3206NNaction for3207INfor a3208DTa clear3209JJclear rogue3210NNrogue violation3211NNviolation of3212INof the3213DTthe Fourth3214JJfourth Amendment3215NPAmendment that3216WDTthat takes3217VVZtake place3218NNplace in3219INin the3220DTthe way3221NNway this3222DTthis does3223VVZdo .3224SENT. Is3225VBZbe that3226DTthat sufficient3227JJsufficient ,3228,, to3229TOto use3230VVuse the3231DTthe Abbasi3232NPAbbasi term3233NNterm that3234WDTthat ...3235:... which3236WDTwhich I3237PPI 've3238VHPhave now3239RBnow lost3240VVNlose ,3241,, but3242CCbut the3243DTthe Abbasi3244NPAbbasi term3245NNterm that3246IN/thatthat this3247DTthis is3248VBZbe some3249DTsome kind3250NNkind of3251INof extension3252NNextension of3253INof the3254DTthe Fourth3255JJfourth Amendment3256NPAmendment or3257CCor that3258IN/thatthat this3259DTthis is3260VBZbe some3261DTsome kind3262NNkind of3263INof special3264JJspecial situation3265NNsituation ?3266SENT? That3267RBthat ,3268,, I3269PPI thought3270VVDthink ,3271,, was3272VBDbe the3273DTthe issue3274NNissue .3275SENT. And3276CCand at3277INat some3278DTsome point3279NNpoint ,3280,, I3281PPI ...3282:... I3283PPI feel3284VVPfeel ,3285,, I3286PPI 'll3287MDwill try3288VVtry to3289TOto answer3290VVanswer that3291DTthat question3292NNquestion ,3293,, but3294CCbut I3295PPI 'd3296MDwould like3297VVlike to3298TOto hear3299VVhear what3300WPwhat you3301PPyou say3302VVPsay about3303RBabout that3304RBthat .3305SENT. [MR. VLADECK]3306LOC[MR. VLADECK] I3307PPI ...3308:... I3309PPI ...3310:... I3311PPI agree3312VVPagree completely3313RBcompletely ,3314,, Justice3315NPJustice Breyer3316NPBreyer .3317SENT. I3318PPI mean3319VVPmean ,3320,, I3321PPI think3322VVPthink that3323IN/thatthat Abbasi3324NPAbbasi ...3325:... I3326PPI do3327VVPdo n't3328RBn't think3329VVthink Abbasi3330NPAbbasi ...3331:... [JUSTICE BREYER]3332LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] I3333PPI do3334VVPdo n't3335RBn't care3336VVcare whether3337INwhether you3338PPyou agree3339VVPagree or3340CCor not3341RBnot .3342SENT. All3343RBall I3344PPI want3345VVPwant to3346TOto hear3347VVhear is3348VBZbe your3349PP$your argument3350NNargument on3351INon ...3352:... I3353PPI do3354VVPdo n't3355RBn't want3356VVwant to3357TOto repeat3358VVrepeat myself3359PPmyself ...3360:... but3361CCbut on3362INon the3363DTthe assumptions3364NNSassumption I3365PPI gave3366VVDgive ...3367:... [MR. VLADECK]3368LOC[MR. VLADECK] Yes3369NPYes .3370SENT. [JUSTICE BREYER]3371LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] ...3372:... what3373WPwhat is3374VBZbe your3375PP$your argument3376NNargument that3377IN/thatthat this3378DTthis is3379VBZbe not3380RBnot an3381DTan extension3382NNextension ,3383,, that3384IN/thatthat this3385DTthis is3386VBZbe not3387RBnot special3388JJspecial ,3389,, that3390IN/thatthat this3391DTthis is3392VBZbe not3393RBnot an3394DTan unusual3395JJunusual thing3396NNthing ?3397SENT? [MR. VLADECK]3398LOC[MR. VLADECK] I3399PPI understand3400VVPunderstand .3401SENT. [JUSTICE BREYER]3402LOC[JUSTICE BREYER] What3403WPWhat 's3404VHZhave your3405PP$your argument3406NNargument ?3407SENT? [MR. VLADECK]3408LOC[MR. VLADECK] So3409INso our3410PP$our argument3411NNargument is3412VBZbe ,3413,, first3414RBfirst ,3415,, that3416IN/thatthat this3417DTthis Court3418NPCourt has3419VHZhave long3420RBlong recognized3421VVNrecognize that3422IN/thatthat claims3423NNSclaim against3424INagainst individual3425JJindividual law3426NNlaw enforcement3427NNenforcement officers3428NNSofficer for3429INfor excessive3430JJexcessive force3431NNforce are3432VBPbe what3433WPwhat the3434DTthe Fifth3435NPFifth Circuit3436NPCircuit called3437VVDcall classic3438JJclassic Bivens3439NPBivens claims3440NNSclaim .3441SENT. I3442PPI believe3443VVPbelieve there3444EXthere 's3445VBZbe an3446DTan opinion3447NNopinion by3448INby then3449RBthen Judge3450NPJudge Kavanaugh3451NPKavanaugh referring3452VVGrefer to3453TOto it3454PPit as3455INas the3456DTthe core3457NNcore of3458INof Bivens3459NPBivens to3460TOto bring3461VVbring a3462DTa claim3463NNclaim that3464IN/thatthat an3465DTan individual3466JJindividual law3467NNlaw enforcement3468NNenforcement officer3469NNofficer is3470VBZbe acting3471VVGact ultra3472JJultra vires3473NNSvire .3474SENT. So3475RBso ,3476,, Justice3477NPJustice Breyer3478NPBreyer ,3479,, I3480PPI think3481VVPthink there3482EXthere 's3483VBZbe at3484INat least3485JJSleast an3486DTan argument3487NNargument that3488IN/thatthat this3489DTthis might3490MDmight not3491RBnot even3492RBeven be3493VBbe a3494DTa new3495JJnew context3496NNcontext .3497SENT. But3498CCbut ,3499,, even3500RBeven if3501INif it3502PPit is3503VBZbe a3504DTa new3505JJnew context3506NNcontext ,3507,, the3508DTthe government3509NNgovernment and3510CCand Respondent3511NNrespondent have3512VHPhave identified3513VVNidentify three3514CDthree special3515JJspecial factors3516NNSfactor that3517IN/thatthat they3518PPthey argue3519VVPargue counsel3520NNcounsel hesitation3521NNhesitation .3522SENT. First3523RBfirst ,3524,, they3525PPthey say3526VVPsay it3527PPit 's3528VBZbe because3529INbecause this3530DTthis case3531NNcase implicates3532VVZimplicate foreign3533JJforeign relations3534NNSrelation and3535CCand national3536JJnational security3537NNsecurity .3538SENT. As3539INas we3540PPwe suggest3541VVPsuggest in3542INin our3543PP$our briefs3544NNSbrief ,3545,, we3546PPwe do3547VVPdo n't3548RBn't believe3549VVbelieve that3550WDTthat follows3551VVZfollow simply3552RBsimply from3553INfrom the3554DTthe fact3555NNfact that3556IN/thatthat Sergio3557NPSergio Hernandez3558NPHernandez was3559VBDbe standing3560VVGstand on3561INon the3562DTthe Mexican3563JJMexican side3564NNside of3565INof the3566DTthe border3567NNborder as3568RBas opposed3569VVNoppose to3570TOto the3571DTthe American3572JJAmerican side3573NNside of3574INof the3575DTthe border3576NNborder .3577SENT. The3578DTthe government3579NNgovernment also3580RBalso argues3581VVZargue extraterritoriality3582NNextraterritoriality as3583INas a3584DTa special3585JJspecial factor3586NNfactor .3587SENT. As3588INas I3589PPI think3590VVPthink I3591PPI hope3592VVPhope I3593PPI explained3594VVDexplain in3595INin response3596NNresponse to3597TOto Justice3598NPJustice Kavanaugh3599NPKavanaugh 's3600POS's question3601NNquestion ,3602,, we3603PPwe do3604VVPdo n't3605RBn't think3606VVthink extraterritoriality3607NNextraterritoriality is3608VBZbe implicated3609VVNimplicate here3610RBhere because3611INbecause this3612DTthis case3613NNcase touches3614NNStouch and3615CCand concerns3616NNSconcern U3617NPU .3618SENT. S3619NPS .3620SENT. territory3621NNterritory with3622INwith sufficient3623JJsufficient force3624NNforce to3625TOto displace3626VVdisplace the3627DTthe presumption3628NNpresumption .3629SENT. And3630CCand the3631DTthe third3632JJthird extra3633JJextra ...3634:... the3635DTthe third3636JJthird special3637JJspecial factor3638NNfactor invoked3639VVNinvoke by3640INby Respondent3641NNrespondent and3642CCand the3643DTthe government3644NNgovernment is3645VBZbe congressional3646JJcongressional action3647NNaction .3648SENT. And3649CCand I3650PPI think3651VVPthink ,3652,, in3653INin that3654DTthat context3655NNcontext ,3656,, there3657EXthere 's3658VBZbe no3659DTno example3660NNexample of3661INof Congress3662NPCongress specifically3663RBspecifically trying3664VVGtry to3665TOto preclude3666VVpreclude claims3667NNSclaim like3668INlike Petitioners3669NNSpetitioner here3670RBhere .3671SENT. And3672CCand the3673DTthe only3674JJonly time3675NNtime Congress3676NPCongress has3677VHZhave ever3678RBever spoken3679VVNspeak to3680TOto the3681DTthe tort3682NNtort liability3683NNliability of3684INof ,3685,, again3686RBagain ,3687,, Justice3688NPJustice Gorsuch3689NPGorsuch ,3690,, this3691DTthis is3692VBZbe where3693WRBwhere we3694PPwe get3695VVPget our3696PP$our test3697NNtest from3698INfrom ,3699,, individual3700JJindividual federal3701JJfederal law3702NNlaw enforcement3703NNenforcement officers3704NNSofficer ,3705,, Congress3706NPCongress has3707VHZhave expanded3708VVNexpand that3709DTthat liability3710NNliability .3711SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]3712LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Counsel3713NPCounsel ...3714:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]3715LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] Tell3716VVtell me3717PPme ...3718:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]3719LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] ...3720:... just3721RBjust to3722TOto go3723VVgo with3724INwith the3725DTthe first3726JJfirst of3727INof the3728DTthe things3729NNSthing you3730PPyou mentioned3731VVDmention ,3732,, the3733DTthe international3734JJinternational relations3735NNSrelation ,3736,, there3737EXthere has3738VHZhave been3739VBNbe diplomatic3740JJdiplomatic correspondence3741NNcorrespondence between3742INbetween the3743DTthe Mexican3744JJMexican government3745NNgovernment and3746CCand our3747PP$our government3748NNgovernment with3749INwith respect3750NNrespect to3751TOto this3752DTthis ...3753:... this3754DTthis ...3755:... this3756DTthis incident3757NNincident .3758SENT. The3759DTthe Border3760NPBorder Patrol3761NNpatrol has3762VHZhave conducted3763VVNconduct an3764DTan investigation3765NNinvestigation ,3766,, and3767CCand it3768PPit reached3769VVDreach the3770DTthe determination3771NNdetermination that3772IN/thatthat the3773DTthe action3774NNaction of3775INof the3776DTthe agent3777NNagent was3778VBDbe not3779RBnot contrary3780JJcontrary to3781TOto policy3782NNpolicy .3783SENT. And3784CCand you3785PPyou would3786MDwould have3787VHhave the3788DTthe courts3789NNScourt look3790VVPlook into3791INinto this3792DTthis by3793INby avail3794NNavail ...3795:... providing3796VVGprovide a3797DTa Bivens3798NPBivens remedy3799NNremedy that3800WDTthat could3801MDcould well3802RBwell come3803VVcome to3804TOto the3805DTthe opposite3806JJopposite conclusion3807NNconclusion .3808SENT. So3809RBso that3810IN/thatthat in3811INin terms3812NNSterm of3813INof our3814PP$our relations3815NNSrelation with3816INwith Mexico3817NPMexico ,3818,, we3819PPwe 'd3820MDwould have3821VHhave one3822CDone agency3823NNagency saying3824VVGsay this3825DTthis was3826VBDbe not3827RBnot inconsistent3828JJinconsistent with3829INwith policy3830NNpolicy .3831SENT. We3832PPwe 'd3833MDwould have3834VHhave the3835DTthe court3836NNcourt saying3837VVGsay it3838PPit is3839VBZbe .3840SENT. And3841CCand that3842DTthat is3843VBZbe the3844DTthe type3845NNtype of3846INof thing3847NNthing that3848IN/thatthat it3849PPit makes3850VVZmake it3851PPit at3852INat least3853JJSleast a3854DTa ...3855:... a3856DTa new3857JJnew context3858NNcontext .3859SENT. You3860PPyou can3861MDcan say3862VVsay it3863PPit does3864VVZdo n't3865RBn't make3866VVmake a3867DTa difference3868NNdifference ,3869,, but3870CCbut ,3871,, in3872INin terms3873NNSterm of3874INof our3875PP$our relations3876NNSrelation with3877INwith Mexico3878NPMexico ,3879,, they3880PPthey 've3881VHPhave got3882VVNget two3883CDtwo different3884JJdifferent things3885NNSthing ,3886,, and3887CCand at3888INat least3889JJSleast with3890INwith respect3891NNrespect to3892TOto foreign3893JJforeign relations3894NNSrelation ,3895,, I3896PPI thought3897VVDthink the3898DTthe country3899NNcountry was3900VBDbe supposed3901VVNsuppose to3902TOto speak3903VVspeak with3904INwith one3905CDone voice3906NNvoice .3907SENT. [MR. VLADECK]3908LOC[MR. VLADECK] So3909INso I3910PPI do3911VVPdo ...3912:... I3913PPI certainly3914RBcertainly agree3915VVPagree that3916IN/thatthat the3917DTthe ...3918:... that3919IN/thatthat the3920DTthe country3921NNcountry is3922VBZbe supposed3923VVNsuppose to3924TOto speak3925VVspeak with3926INwith one3927CDone voice3928NNvoice ,3929,, Mr3930NPMr .3931SENT. Chief3932NPChief Justice3933NPJustice .3934SENT. Two3935CDTwo ...3936:... two3937CDtwo points3938NNSpoint in3939INin response3940NNresponse .3941SENT. The3942DTthe first3943JJfirst is3944VBZbe ,3945,, of3946INof course3947NNcourse ,3948,, if3949INif the3950DTthe government3951NNgovernment continues3952VVZcontinue to3953TOto believe3954VVbelieve and3955CCand if3956INif Respondent3957NNrespondent continues3958VVZcontinue to3959TOto believe3960VVbelieve there3961EXthere would3962MDwould be3963VBbe a3964DTa Bivens3965NPBivens remedy3966NNremedy if3967INif Sergio3968NPSergio Hernandez3969NPHernandez had3970VHDhave simply3971RBsimply been3972VBNbe standing3973VVGstand on3974INon American3975JJAmerican soil3976NNsoil ,3977,, it3978PPit 's3979VBZbe not3980RBnot clear3981JJclear to3982TOto me3983PPme why3984WRBwhy the3985DTthe same3986JJsame concerns3987NNSconcern would3988MDwould n't3989RBn't be3990VBbe equally3991RBequally present3992JJpresent .3993SENT. That3994DTthat is3995VBZbe to3996TOto say3997VVsay ,3998,, by3999INby that4000DTthat logic4001NNlogic ,4002,, any4003DTany time4004NNtime a4005DTa U4006NPU .4007SENT. S4008NPS .4009SENT. officer4010NNofficer harms4011VVZharm any4012DTany foreign4013JJforeign national4014JJnational ,4015,, even4016RBeven if4017INif Bivens4018NPBivens itself4019PPitself ...4020:... if4021INif Bivens4022NPBivens had4023VHDhave been4024VBNbe a4025DTa foreign4026JJforeign national4027JJnational ,4028,, it4029PPit 's4030VBZbe not4031RBnot hard4032JJhard to4033TOto imagine4034VVimagine similar4035JJsimilar diplomatic4036JJdiplomatic correspondence4037NNcorrespondence following4038VVGfollow from4039INfrom that4040DTthat incident4041NNincident .4042SENT. [JUSTICE KAVANAUGH]4043LOC[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH] They4044PPthey argue4045VVPargue it4046PPit 's4047VBZbe not4048RBnot merely4049RBmerely the4050DTthe foreign4051JJforeign policy4052NNpolicy implications4053NNSimplication that4054IN/thatthat the4055DTthe Chief4056NPChief Justice4057NPJustice identified4058VVNidentify but4059CCbut that4060IN/thatthat border4061NNborder security4062NNsecurity is4063VBZbe also4064RBalso national4065JJnational security4066NNsecurity in4067INin some4068DTsome respects4069NNSrespect and4070CCand that4071IN/thatthat that4072DTthat 's4073VBZbe a4074DTa different4075JJdifferent context4076NNcontext ,4077,, slightly4078RBslightly different4079JJdifferent than4080INthan the4081DTthe foreign4082JJforeign relations4083NNSrelation .4084SENT. Can4085MDcan you4086PPyou address4087VVaddress that4088DTthat ?4089SENT? [MR. VLADECK]4090LOC[MR. VLADECK] Absolutely4091RBabsolutely .4092SENT. And4093CCand we4094PPwe certainly4095RBcertainly agree4096VVPagree that4097IN/thatthat border4098NNborder security4099NNsecurity as4100INas a4101DTa policy4102NNpolicy is4103VBZbe an4104DTan important4105JJimportant policy4106NNpolicy of4107INof the4108DTthe United4109NPUnited States4110NPSStates ,4111,, that4112WDTthat if4113INif we4114PPwe were4115VBDbe here4116RBhere challenging4117VVGchallenge one4118CDone of4119INof the4120DTthe government4121NNgovernment 's4122POS's border4123NNborder patrol4124NNpatrol policies4125NNSpolicy ,4126,, this4127DTthis would4128MDwould be4129VBbe a4130DTa different4131JJdifferent case4132NNcase .4133SENT. But4134CCbut I4135PPI think4136VVPthink it4137PPit 's4138VBZbe important4139JJimportant to4140TOto note4141VVnote ,4142,, back4143RBback to4144TOto the4145DTthe Chief4146NPChief Justice4147NPJustice 's4148POS's question4149NNquestion ,4150,, that4151IN/thatthat the4152DTthe dispute4153NNdispute here4154RBhere is4155VBZbe over4156RPover whether4157INwhether Respondent4158NNrespondent violated4159VVDviolate the4160DTthe very4161JJvery government4162NNgovernment policy4163NNpolicy at4164INat issue4165NNissue .4166SENT. That4167DTthat is4168VBZbe to4169TOto say4170VVsay ,4171,, we4172PPwe are4173VBPbe not4174RBnot challenging4175VVGchallenge a4176DTa policy4177NNpolicy of4178INof the4179DTthe government4180NNgovernment .4181SENT. We4182PPwe are4183VBPbe claiming4184VVGclaim Respondent4185NNrespondent himself4186PPhimself did4187VVDdo not4188RBnot comply4189VVcomply with4190INwith that4191DTthat policy4192NNpolicy .4193SENT. The4194DTthe government4195NNgovernment 's4196VBZbe entitled4197VVNentitle ,4198,, Mr4199NPMr .4200SENT. Chief4201NPChief Justice4202NPJustice ,4203,, to4204TOto its4205PP$its own4206JJown preliminary4207JJpreliminary determination4208NNdetermination of4209INof that4210DTthat question4211NNquestion .4212SENT. We4213PPwe do4214VVPdo n't4215RBn't think4216VVthink it4217PPit is4218VBZbe the4219DTthe kind4220NNkind of4221INof policy4222NNpolicy to4223TOto which4224WDTwhich this4225DTthis Court4226NPCourt has4227VHZhave historically4228RBhistorically accorded4229VVNaccord deference4230NNdeference in4231INin the4232DTthe foreign4233JJforeign relations4234NNSrelation and4235CCand national4236JJnational security4237NNsecurity sphere4238NNsphere ,4239,, if4240INif it4241PPit 's4242VBZbe an4243DTan after-the-fact4244JJafter-the-fact factual4245JJfactual determination4246NNdetermination about4247INabout a4248DTa single4249JJsingle incident4250NNincident ,4251,, as4252RBas opposed4253VVNoppose to4254TOto ,4255,, say4256VVsay ,4257,, a4258DTa challenge4259NNchallenge to4260TOto an4261DTan entire4262JJentire border4263NNborder patrol4264NNpatrol policy4265NNpolicy .4266SENT. [JUSTICE ALITO]4267LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] I4268PPI thought4269VVDthink you4270PPyou were4271VBDbe challenging4272VVGchallenge the4273DTthe ...4274:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]4275LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] Can4276MDcan you4277PPyou go4278VVgo back4279RBback 84280CD8 to4281TOto ...4282:... [JUSTICE ALITO]4283LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] ...4284:... I4285PPI thought4286VVDthink you4287PPyou were4288VBDbe challenging4289VVGchallenge the4290DTthe constitutionality4291NNconstitutionality of4292INof what4293WPwhat was4294VBDbe done4295VVNdo ,4296,, not4297RBnot whether4298INwhether it4299PPit was4300VBDbe consistent4301JJconsistent with4302INwith border4303NNborder patrol4304NNpatrol policy4305NNpolicy .4306SENT. [MR. VLADECK]4307LOC[MR. VLADECK] So4308RBso ,4309,, Justice4310NPJustice Alito4311NPAlito ...4312:... [JUSTICE ALITO]4313LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Is4314VBZbe that4315DTthat ...4316:... is4317VBZbe that4318DTthat ...4319:... does4320VVZdo that4321RBthat provide4322VVprovide the4323DTthe basis4324NNbasis for4325INfor a4326DTa federal4327JJfederal claim4328NNclaim ?4329SENT? If4330INif it4331PPit were4332VBDbe ...4333:... if4334INif you4335PPyou put4336VVDput the4337DTthe Fourth4338JJfourth Amendment4339NPAmendment aside4340NNaside ,4341,, but4342CCbut the4343DTthe action4344NNaction was4345VBDbe contrary4346JJcontrary to4347TOto border4348NNborder ...4349:... border4350NNborder patrol4351NNpatrol policy4352NNpolicy ,4353,, would4354MDwould that4355RBthat provide4356VVprovide the4357DTthe basis4358NNbasis for4359INfor a4360DTa federal4361JJfederal claim4362NNclaim ?4363SENT? [MR. VLADECK]4364LOC[MR. VLADECK] Not4365RBnot for4366INfor a4367DTa damages4368NNSdamage suit4369NNsuit ,4370,, of4371INof course4372NNcourse ,4373,, but4374CCbut ...4375:... [JUSTICE ALITO]4376LOC[JUSTICE ALITO] Yes4377NPYes .4378SENT. [MR. VLADECK]4379LOC[MR. VLADECK] ...4380:... but4381CCbut it4382PPit is4383VBZbe our4384PP$our position4385NNposition ,4386,, Justice4387NPJustice Alito4388NPAlito ,4389,, that4390WDTthat ...4391:... just4392RBjust to4393TOto go4394VVgo back4395RBback to4396TOto my4397PP$my colloquy4398NNcolloquy with4399INwith Justice4400NPJustice Gorsuch4401NPGorsuch ,4402,, again4403RBagain ,4404,, the4405DTthe reason4406NNreason why4407WRBwhy we4408PPwe believe4409VVPbelieve this4410DTthis is4411VBZbe in4412INin the4413DTthe heartland4414NNheartland of4415INof Bivens4416NPBivens ,4417,, notwithstanding4418INnotwithstanding the4419DTthe concerns4420NNSconcern that4421IN/thatthat the4422DTthe Chief4423NPChief Justice4424NPJustice has4425VHZhave referred4426VVNrefer to4427TOto and4428CCand that4429DTthat Justice4430NPJustice Kavanaugh4431NPKavanaugh alluded4432VVDallude to4433TOto ,4434,, is4435VBZbe because4436INbecause ,4437,, here4438RBhere ,4439,, we4440PPwe do4441VVPdo not4442RBnot have4443VHhave a4444DTa case4445NNcase where4446WRBwhere the4447DTthe claim4448NNclaim is4449VBZbe that4450IN/thatthat a4451DTa particular4452JJparticular policy4453NNpolicy of4454INof the4455DTthe United4456NPUnited States4457NPSStates in4458INin the4459DTthe foreign4460JJforeign relations4461NNSrelation or4462CCor national4463JJnational security4464NNsecurity sphere4465NNsphere was4466VBDbe the4467DTthe source4468NNsource of4469INof the4470DTthe injury4471NNinjury to4472TOto the4473DTthe plaintiffs4474NNSplaintiff .4475SENT. Here4476RBhere ,4477,, our4478PP$our argument4479NNargument is4480VBZbe that4481IN/thatthat the4482DTthe policy4483NNpolicy is4484VBZbe actually4485RBactually coextensive4486JJcoextensive with4487INwith the4488DTthe Constitution4489NPConstitution ,4490,, and4491CCand so4492RBso that4493IN/thatthat if4494INif we4495PPwe are4496VBPbe correct4497JJcorrect ,4498,, which4499WDTwhich we4500PPwe have4501VHPhave not4502RBnot yet4503RByet ,4504,, of4505INof course4506NNcourse ,4507,, had4508VHDhave a4509DTa chance4510NNchance to4511TOto prove4512VVprove ,4513,, but4514CCbut if4515INif we4516PPwe are4517VBPbe correct4518JJcorrect that4519IN/thatthat Respondent4520NNrespondent violated4521VVDviolate Petitioner4522NNpetitioner 's4523VBZbe constitutional4524JJconstitutional ...4525:... or4526CCor Sergio4527NPSergio Hernandez4528NPHernandez 's4529POS's constitutional4530JJconstitutional rights4531NNSright ,4532,, Justice4533NPJustice Alito4534NPAlito ,4535,, there4536EXthere would4537MDwould also4538RBalso be4539VBbe a4540DTa violation4541NNviolation of4542INof policy4543NNpolicy .4544SENT. And4545CCand so4546RBso ,4547,, to4548TOto us4549PPus ,4550,, the4551DTthe questions4552NNSquestion blend4553VVPblend together4554RBtogether because4555INbecause it4556PPit helps4557VVZhelp to4558TOto drive4559VVdrive home4560NNhome why4561WRBwhy this4562DTthis case4563NNcase is4564VBZbe not4565RBnot like4566INlike the4567DTthe nine4568CDnine cases4569NNScase this4570DTthis Court4571NPCourt has4572VHZhave had4573VHNhave since4574INsince Carlson4575NPCarlson ...4576:... [JUSTICE GINSBURG]4577LOC[JUSTICE GINSBURG] Can4578MDcan ...4579:... can4580MDcan we4581PPwe ...4582:... can4583MDcan we4584PPwe go4585VVgo back4586RBback to4587TOto the4588DTthe question4589NNquestion that4590IN/thatthat I4591PPI asked4592VVDask ?4593SENT? If4594INif breaking4595VVGbreak into4596INinto someone4597NNsomeone 's4598POS's home4599NNhome and4600CCand searching4601VVGsearch and4602CCand seizing4603VVGseize ,4604,, if4605INif that4606WDTthat 's4607VBZbe not4608RBnot a4609DTa Fourth4610JJfourth Amendment4611NPAmendment violation4612NNviolation because4613INbecause the4614DTthe person4615NNperson is4616VBZbe a4617DTa non-citizen4618NNnon-citizen and4619CCand it4620PPit happened4621VVDhappen abroad4622RBabroad ,4623,, you4624PPyou said4625VVDsay a4626DTa cross-border4627JJcross-border shooting4628NNshooting is4629VBZbe more4630RBRmore complicated4631JJcomplicated .4632SENT. Why4633WRBwhy should4634MDshould it4635PPit be4636VBbe different4637JJdifferent ?4638SENT? [MR. VLADECK]4639LOC[MR. VLADECK] So4640RBso ,4641,, Justice4642NPJustice Ginsburg4643NPGinsburg ,4644,, with4645INwith respect4646NNrespect ,4647,, I4648PPI actually4649RBactually think4650VVPthink it4651PPit was4652VBDbe this4653DTthis Court4654NNcourt that4655WDTthat said4656VVDsay that4657IN/thatthat in4658INin Hernandez4659NPHernandez I4660PPI .4661SENT. And4662CCand I4663PPI think4664VVPthink the4665DTthe reason4666NNreason why4667WRBwhy is4668VBZbe because4669INbecause there4670EXthere is4671VBZbe some4672DTsome uncertainty4673NNuncertainty in4674INin the4675DTthe lower4676JJRlow courts4677NNScourt ,4678,, as4679RBas reflected4680VVNreflect in4681INin the4682DTthe Ninth4683JJninth Circu4684NPCircu it4685PPit 's4686VBZbe decision4687NNdecision in4688INin the4689DTthe Rodriguez4690NPRodriguez case4691NNcase ,4692,, the4693DTthe original4694JJoriginal three-judge4695JJthree-judge panel4696NNpanel decision4697NNdecision in4698INin this4699DTthis case4700NNcase .4701SENT. There4702EXthere is4703VBZbe some4704DTsome uncertainty4705NNuncertainty about4706RBabout just4707RBjust how4708WRBhow broadly4709RBbroadly this4710DTthis Court4711NPCourt 's4712POS's decision4713NNdecision in4714INin Verdugo-Urquidez4715NPVerdugo-Urquidez ,4716,, in4717INin which4718WDTwhich the4719DTthe Court4720NPCourt said4721VVDsay a4722DTa Mexican4723JJMexican national4724JJnational could4725MDcould not4726RBnot invoke4727VVinvoke the4728DTthe Fourth4729JJfourth Amendment4730NPAmendment to4731TOto challenge4732VVchallenge the4733DTthe search4734NNsearch of4735INof his4736PP$his home4737NNhome ...4738:... the4739DTthe warrantless4740JJwarrantless search4741NNsearch of4742INof his4743PP$his home4744NNhome by4745INby a4746DTa DEA4747NPDEA officer4748NNofficer ,4749,, there4750EXthere 's4751VBZbe uncertainty4752NNuncertainty about4753INabout how4754WRBhow far4755RBfar that4756DTthat sweeps4757NNSsweep .4758SENT. Is4759VBZbe that4760IN/thatthat a4761DTa categorical4762JJcategorical on4763NNon /4764SYM/ off4765JJoff switch4766NNswitch at4767INat the4768DTthe border4769NNborder ,4770,, or4771CCor are4772VBPbe there4773RBthere reasons4774NNSreason to4775TOto actually4776RBactually think4777VVthink the4778DTthe Fourth4779JJfourth Amendment4780NPAmendment question4781NNquestion is4782VBZbe more4783RBRmore complicated4784VVNcomplicate in4785INin the4786DTthe context4787NNcontext in4788INin which4789WDTwhich you4790PPyou have4791VHPhave cross-border4792JJcross-border episodes4793NNSepisode ,4794,, especially4795RBespecially after4796INafter Boumediene4797NPBoumediene ?4798SENT? And4799CCand that4800DTthat is4801VBZbe say4802VVsay ,4803,, does4804VVZdo Verdugo4805NPVerdugo still4806RBstill have4807VHPhave the4808DTthe same4809JJsame force4810NNforce ?4811SENT? Now4812RBnow ...4813:... [JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR]4814LOC[JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR] Mr4815NPMr .4816SENT. Vladeck4817NPVladeck ,4818,, there4819EXthere is4820VBZbe one4821CDone part4822NNpart of4823INof the4824DTthe Chief4825NPChief 's4826POS's question4827NNquestion you4828PPyou did4829VVDdo n't4830RBn't answer4831VVanswer .4832SENT. The4833DTthe government4834NNgovernment 's4835POS's speaking4836NNspeaking with4837INwith one4838CDone voice4839NNvoice ,4840,, and4841CCand you4842PPyou said4843VVDsay the4844DTthe government4845NNgovernment should4846MDshould .4847SENT. But4848CCbut he4849PPhe 's4850VHZhave posited4851VVNposit a4852DTa big4853JJbig difference4854NNdifference here4855RBhere .4856SENT. The4857DTthe government4858NNgovernment ...4859:... the4860DTthe executive4861NNexecutive has4862VHZhave said4863VVNsay this4864DTthis was4865VBDbe not4866RBnot a4867DTa rogue4868NNrogue action4869NNaction .4870SENT. This4871DTthis security4872NNsecurity guard4873NNguard .4874SENT. They4875PPthey 've4876VHPhave concluded4877VVNconclude on4878RPon ...4879:... based4880VVNbase on4881INon what4882WPwhat ,4883,, we4884PPwe do4885VVPdo n't4886RBn't know4887VVknow ...4888:... that4889IN/thatthat this4890DTthis officer4891NNofficer was4892VBDbe being4893VBGbe attacked4894VVNattack and4895CCand that4896DTthat 's4897VBZbe why4898WRBwhy he4899PPhe shot4900VVDshoot .4901SENT. The4902DTthe allegations4903NNSallegation of4904INof this4905DTthis complaint4906NNcomplaint are4907VBPbe to4908TOto the4909DTthe contrary4910NNcontrary .4911SENT. If4912INif the4913DTthe court4914NNcourt were4915VBDbe to4916TOto rule4917VVrule in4918INin favor4919NNfavor of4920INof your4921PP$your client4922NNclient ...4923:... not4924RBnot the4925DTthe court4926NNcourt ,4927,, but4928CCbut a4929DTa jury4930NNjury were4931VBDbe to4932TOto have4933VHhave found4934VVNfind in4935INin favor4936NNfavor of4937INof your4938PP$your client4939NNclient ,4940,, would4941MDwould n't4942RBn't we4943PPwe be4944VBbe speaking4945VVGspeak in4946INin two4947CDtwo voices4948NNSvoice ?4949SENT? You4950PPyou have4951VHPhave n't4952RBn't addressed4953VVNaddress that4954DTthat .4955SENT. [MR. VLADECK]4956LOC[MR. VLADECK] Thank4957VVthank you4958PPyou ,4959,, Justice4960NPJustice Sotomayor4961NPSotomayor .4962SENT. And4963CCand I4964PPI think4965VVPthink our4966PP$our response4967NNresponse is4968VBZbe I4969PPI think4970VVPthink that4971IN/thatthat this4972DTthis Court4973NPCourt has4974VHZhave never4975RBnever suggested4976VVNsuggest that4977IN/thatthat every4978DTevery single4979JJsingle thing4980NNthing the4981DTthe United4982NPUnited States4983NPSStates says4984VVZsay that4985WDTthat has4986VHZhave any4987DTany bearing4988NNbearing on4989INon any4990DTany possible4991JJpossible sliver4992NNsliver of4993INof foreign4994JJforeign relations4995NNSrelation is4996VBZbe the4997DTthe kind4998NNkind of4999INof foreign5000JJforeign policy5001NNpolicy where5002WRBwhere this5003DTthis Court5004NPCourt has5005VHZhave said5006VVNsay the5007DTthe ...5008:... the5009DTthe government5010NNgovernment should5011MDshould be5012VBbe allowed5013VVNallow to5014TOto speak5015VVspeak with5016INwith one5017CDone voice5018NNvoice .5019SENT. And5020CCand so5021RBso I5022PPI think5023VVPthink there5024EXthere 's5025VBZbe a5026DTa meaningful5027JJmeaningful distinction5028NNdistinction between5029INbetween a5030DTa policy5031NNpolicy that5032WDTthat is5033VBZbe ex5034JJex ante5035NNante shaping5036VVGshape the5037DTthe conduct5038NNconduct of5039INof our5040PP$our border5041NNborder patrol5042NNpatrol officers5043NNSofficer ,5044,, of5045INof our5046PP$our government5047NNgovernment officers5048NNSofficer ,5049,, where5050WRBwhere a5051DTa judicial5052JJjudicial decision5053NNdecision might5054MDmight call5055VVcall into5056INinto question5057NNquestion the5058DTthe policy5059NNpolicy ,5060,, and5061CCand a5062DTa context5063NNcontext where5064WRBwhere the5065DTthe dispute5066NNdispute rises5067VVZrise and5068CCand falls5069VVZfall on5070INon whether5071INwhether the5072DTthe government5073NNgovernment 's5074POS's own5075JJown policy5076NNpolicy prohibiting5077VVGprohibit excessive5078JJexcessive force5079NNforce in5080INin violation5081NNviolation of5082INof the5083DTthe Constitution5084NPConstitution was5085VBDbe violated5086VVNviolate .5087SENT. That5088DTthat is5089VBZbe to5090TOto say5091VVsay ,5092,, it5093PPit seems5094VVZseem to5095TOto me5096PPme that5097IN/thatthat there5098EXthere 's5099VBZbe merger5100NNmerger .5101SENT. [JUSTICE KAGAN]5102LOC[JUSTICE KAGAN] But5103CCbut what5104WPwhat if5105INif ,5106,, Mr5107NPMr .5108SENT. Vladeck5109NPVladeck ,5110,, you5111PPyou had5112VHDhave ...5113:... you5114PPyou have5115VHPhave this5116DTthis one5117CDone incident5118NNincident and5119CCand the5120DTthe executive5121JJexecutive branch5122NNbranch had5123VHDhave a5124DTa very5125RBvery different5126JJdifferent view5127NNview of5128INof what5129WPwhat happened5130VVDhappen than5131INthan a5132DTa court5133NNcourt did5134VVDdo ?5135SENT? A5136DTa court5137NNcourt said5138VVDsay there5139EXthere was5140VBDbe unconstitutional5141JJunconstitutional conduct5142NNconduct here5143RBhere ,5144,, the5145DTthe use5146NNuse of5147INof excessive5148JJexcessive force5149NNforce .5150SENT. But5151CCbut the5152DTthe executive5153JJexecutive branch5154NNbranch thought5155VVDthink he5156PPhe did5157VVDdo everything5158NNeverything by5159INby the5160DTthe book5161NNbook ,5162,, and5163CCand ,5164,, you5165PPyou know5166VVPknow ,5167,, he5168PPhe is5169VBZbe n't5170RBn't subject5171JJsubject ...5172:... he5173PPhe should5174MDshould n't5175RBn't be5176VBbe subject5177JJsubject to5178TOto any5179DTany action5180NNaction ,5181,, even5182RBeven a5183DTa disciplinary5184JJdisciplinary one5185CDone .5186SENT. And5187CCand then5188RBthen the5189DTthe court5190NNcourt 's5191POS's decision5192NNdecision ,5193,, contrary5194JJcontrary to5195TOto that5196DTthat ...5197:... let5198VVlet 's5199VBZbe say5200VVsay Mexico5201NPMexico wants5202VVZwant to5203TOto extradite5204VVextradite the5205DTthe border5206NNborder patrol5207NNpatrol officer5208NNofficer .5209SENT. And5210CCand that5211DTthat puts5212VVZput ,5213,, I5214PPI would5215MDwould think5216VVthink ,5217,, the5218DTthe executive5219JJexecutive branch5220NNbranch in5221INin a5222DTa quite5223RBquite difficult5224JJdifficult situation5225NNsituation .5226SENT. Should5227MDshould ...5228:... you5229PPyou know5230VVPknow ,5231,, Mexico5232NPMexico is5233VBZbe pointing5234VVGpoint at5235INat a5236DTa court5237NNcourt judgment5238NNjudgment ,5239,, but5240CCbut the5241DTthe executive5242JJexecutive branch5243NNbranch thinks5244VVZthink that5245IN/thatthat there5246EXthere 's5247VBZbe no5248DTno earthly5249JJearthly reason5250NNreason to5251TOto extradite5252VVextradite .5253SENT. What5254WPWhat happens5255VVZhappen then5256RBthen ?5257SENT? [MR. VLADECK]5258LOC[MR. VLADECK] Well5259UHwell ,5260,, I5261PPI think5262VVPthink ,5263,, Justice5264NPJustice Kagan5265NPKagan ,5266,, there5267EXthere 's5268VBZbe a5269DTa critical5270JJcritical difference5271NNdifference between5272INbetween what5273WPwhat the5274DTthe preclusive5275JJpreclusive effect5276NNeffect of5277INof a5278DTa civil5279JJcivil judgment5280NNjudgment about5281INabout the5282DTthe unconstitutional5283JJunconstitutional conduct5284NNconduct by5285INby the5286DTthe officer5287NNofficer would5288MDwould prove5289VVprove and5290CCand whether5291INwhether the5292DTthe Mexican5293JJMexican government5294NNgovernment would5295MDwould be5296VBbe able5297JJable to5298TOto satisfy5299VVsatisfy the5300DTthe very5301RBvery different5302JJdifferent inquiry5303NNinquiry of5304INof whether5305INwhether there5306EXthere 's5307VBZbe sufficient5308JJsufficient evidence5309NNevidence to5310TOto sustain5311VVsustain a5312DTa criminal5313JJcriminal indictment5314NNindictment and5315CCand to5316TOto warrant5317VVwarrant extradition5318NNextradition under5319INunder the5320DTthe terms5321NNSterm of5322INof the5323DTthe U5324NPU .5325SENT. S5326NPS .5327SENT. /5328SYM/ Mexico5329NPMexico extradition5330NNextradition treaty5331NNtreaty .5332SENT. And5333CCand I5334PPI think5335VVPthink that5336DTthat 's5337VBZbe the5338DTthe key5339JJkey point5340NNpoint here5341RBhere ,5342,, is5343VBZbe that5344IN/thatthat ,5345,, on5346INon the5347DTthe government5348NNgovernment 's5349POS's logic5350NNlogic ,5351,, all5352RBall it5353PPit takes5354VVZtake is5355VBZbe the5356DTthe government5357NNgovernment showing5358VVGshow up5359RPup after5360INafter an5361DTan incident5362NNincident and5363CCand saying5364VVGsay ,5365,, oh5366UHoh ,5367,, there5368EXthere 's5369VBZbe some5370DTsome reason5371NNreason why5372WRBwhy we5373PPwe do5374VVPdo n't5375RBn't believe5376VVbelieve this5377DTthis was5378VBDbe unlawful5379JJunlawful or5380CCor there5381EXthere 's5382VBZbe some5383DTsome foreign5384JJforeign relations5385NNSrelation implication5386NNimplication to5387TOto a5388DTa judgment5389NNjudgment holding5390NNholding it5391PPit 's5392VBZbe lawful5393JJlawful .5394SENT. And5395CCand if5396INif it5397PPit 's5398VBZbe after5399INafter the5400DTthe fact5401NNfact ,5402,, that5403WDTthat won5404MDwill 't5405RB't matter5406NNmatter ;5407:; it5408PPit would5409MDwould still5410RBstill preclude5411VVpreclude Bivens5412NPBivens .5413SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]5414LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Well5415UHWell ,5416,, that5417WDTthat 's5418VBZbe ,5419,, I5420PPI think5421VVPthink ,5422,, a5423DTa fairly5424RBfairly unfair5425JJunfair characterization5426NNcharacterization of5427INof what5428WPwhat the5429DTthe government5430NNgovernment did5431VVDdo in5432INin this5433DTthis case5434NNcase .5435SENT. According5436VVGaccord to5437TOto their5438PP$their representations5439NNSrepresentation ,5440,, it5441PPit was5442VBDbe a5443DTa fairly5444RBfairly thorough5445JJthorough investigation5446NNinvestigation .5447SENT. And5448CCand maybe5449RBmaybe it5450PPit 's5451VBZbe ...5452:... at5453INat the5454DTthe end5455NNend of5456INof the5457DTthe day5458NNday ,5459,, maybe5460RBmaybe a5461DTa jury5462NNjury would5463MDwould come5464VVcome to5465TOto a5466DTa different5467JJdifferent determination5468NNdetermination than5469INthan the5470DTthe governmental5471JJgovernmental investigation5472NNinvestigation ,5473,, but5474CCbut I5475PPI do5476VVPdo n't5477RBn't think5478VVthink that5479WDTthat 's5480VBZbe fully5481RBfully responsive5482JJresponsive to5483TOto the5484DTthe international5485JJinternational relations5486NNSrelation concerns5487NNSconcern .5488SENT. [MR. VLADECK]5489LOC[MR. VLADECK] That5490DTthat ...5491:... that5492WDTthat 's5493VBZbe fair5494JJfair that5495IN/thatthat you5496PPyou ask5497VVPask ...5498:... [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]5499LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] But5500CCbut ,5501,, even5502RBeven if5503INif not5504RBnot fully5505RBfully responsive5506JJresponsive ,5507,, it5508PPit has5509VHZhave to5510TOto be5511VBbe demonstrated5512VVNdemonstrate it5513PPit 's5514VBZbe simply5515RBsimply a5516DTa new5517JJnew context5518NNcontext for5519INfor the5520DTthe Bivens5521NPBivens question5522NNquestion .5523SENT. [MR. VLADECK]5524LOC[MR. VLADECK] That5525DTthat ...5526:... that5527WDTthat may5528MDmay well5529RBwell be5530VBbe ,5531,, and5532CCand I5533PPI think5534VVPthink our5535PP$our submission5536NNsubmission is5537VBZbe simply5538RBsimply that5539IN/thatthat the5540DTthe question5541NNquestion this5542DTthis Court5543NPCourt has5544VHZhave always5545RBalways suggested5546VVNsuggest in5547INin the5548DTthe Bivens5549NPBivens context5550NNcontext is5551VBZbe how5552WRBhow to5553TOto preserve5554VVpreserve its5555PP$its core5556JJcore deterrent5557NNdeterrent purpose5558NNpurpose ,5559,, and5560CCand in5561INin a5562DTa context5563NNcontext in5564INin which5565WDTwhich the5566DTthe government5567NNgovernment 's5568POS's after-the-fact5569JJafter-the-fact factual5570JJfactual determination5571NNdetermination that5572IN/thatthat an5573DTan officer5574NNofficer had5575VHDhave acted5576VVNact appropriately5577RBappropriately under5578INunder the5579DTthe circumstances5580NNScircumstance were5581VBDbe sufficient5582JJsufficient to5583TOto be5584VBbe a5585DTa policy5586NNpolicy choice5587NNchoice ,5588,, that5589WDTthat does5590VVZdo not5591RBnot actually5592RBactually give5593VVgive rise5594NNrise to5595TOto the5596DTthe kind5597NNkind of5598INof deference5599NNdeference this5600DTthis Court5601NPCourt has5602VHZhave historically5603RBhistorically accorded5604VVNaccord .5605SENT. Right5606RBright ?5607SENT? That5608DTthat 's5609VBZbe what5610WPwhat we5611PPwe 're5612VBPbe worried5613VVNworry about5614RBabout because5615INbecause it5616PPit 's5617VBZbe not5618RBnot clear5619JJclear how5620WRBhow that5621DTthat would5622MDwould n't5623RBn't potentially5624RBpotentially ,5625,, if5626INif not5627RBnot in5628INin this5629DTthis case5630NNcase ,5631,, swallow5632VVswallow the5633DTthe category5634NNcategory ,5635,, right5636RBright ?5637SENT? That5638DTthat is5639VBZbe to5640TOto say5641VVsay ,5642,, if5643INif Abbasi5644NPAbbasi meant5645VVNmean what5646WPwhat it5647PPit said5648VVDsay when5649WRBwhen it5650PPit said5651VVDsay there5652EXthere are5653VBPbe powerful5654JJpowerful reasons5655NNSreason to5656TOto retain5657VVretain Bivens5658NPBivens in5659INin the5660DTthe law5661NNlaw enforcement5662NNenforcement context5663NNcontext ,5664,, we5665PPwe think5666VVPthink that5667WDTthat 's5668VBZbe true5669JJtrue ,5670,, Mr5671NPMr .5672SENT. Chief5673NPChief Justice5674NPJustice ,5675,, even5676RBeven when5677WRBwhen the5678DTthe government5679NNgovernment has5680VHZhave other5681JJother ...5682:... other5683JJother equities5684NNSequity at5685INat stake5686NNstake .5687SENT. Because5688RBbecause ,5689,, again5690RBagain ,5691,, the5692DTthe key5693NNkey for5694INfor us5695PPus is5696VBZbe when5697WRBwhen a5698DTa court5699NNcourt is5700VBZbe saying5701VVGsay an5702DTan individual5703JJindividual officer5704NNofficer has5705VHZhave acted5706VVNact ultra5707JJultra vires5708NNSvire ,5709,, it5710PPit is5711VBZbe not5712RBnot the5713DTthe same5714JJsame thing5715NNthing as5716INas saying5717VVGsay the5718DTthe government5719NNgovernment 's5720POS's policy5721NNpolicy is5722VBZbe somehow5723RBsomehow inconsistent5724JJinconsistent with5725INwith the5726DTthe Constitution5727NPConstitution .5728SENT. It5729PPit 's5730VBZbe not5731RBnot the5732DTthe same5733JJsame thing5734NNthing as5735INas saying5736VVGsay we5737PPwe are5738VBPbe second-guessing5739VVGsecond-guess how5740WRBhow the5741DTthe government5742NNgovernment has5743VHZhave chosen5744VVNchoose to5745TOto conduct5746VVconduct border5747NNborder patrol5748NNpatrol policies5749NNSpolicy .5750SENT. It5751PPit 's5752VBZbe simply5753RBsimply saying5754VVGsay this5755DTthis one5756CDone officer5757NNofficer went5758VVDgo out5759RPout of5760INof bounds5761NNSbound .5762SENT. And5763CCand that5764DTthat 's5765VBZbe the5766DTthe kind5767NNkind of5768INof claim5769NNclaim that5770WDTthat was5771VBDbe historically5772RBhistorically available5773JJavailable at5774INat common5775JJcommon law5776NNlaw .5777SENT. It5778PPit 's5779VBZbe the5780DTthe kind5781NNkind of5782INof claim5783NNclaim Congress5784NPCongress preserved5785VVDpreserve in5786INin the5787DTthe FTCA5788NPFTCA amendment5789NNamendment .5790SENT. And5791CCand if5792INif I5793PPI may5794MDmay ,5795,, I5796PPI think5797VVPthink the5798DTthe ...5799:... the5800DTthe point5801NNpoint of5802INof Abbasi5803NPAbbasi at5804INat the5805DTthe end5806NNend of5807INof the5808DTthe day5809NNday is5810VBZbe to5811TOto draw5812VVdraw the5813DTthe distinction5814NNdistinction between5815INbetween the5816DTthe kind5817NNkind of5818INof claim5819NNclaim this5820DTthis Court5821NPCourt rejected5822VVDreject ,5823,, which5824WDTwhich was5825VBDbe a5826DTa high-level5827JJhigh-level challenge5828NNchallenge to5829TOto post-95830NPpost-9 /5831SYM/ 115832CD@card@ policies5833NNSpolicy formulated5834VVNformulate by5835INby the5836DTthe attorney5837NNattorney general5838NNgeneral and5839CCand the5840DTthe FBI5841NPFBI director5842NNdirector ,5843,, and5844CCand the5845DTthe individual5846JJindividual law5847NNlaw enforcement5848NNenforcement officer5849NNofficer engaged5850VVDengage in5851RBin overreach5852VVoverreach .5853SENT. [CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS]5854LOC[CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS] Thank5855VVthank you5856PPyou ,5857,, counsel5858NNcounsel .5859SENT. Mr5860NPMr ...5861:... .5862SENT. Mr5863NPMr .5864SENT. Ortega5865NPOrtega .5866SENT.