Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction to decide Bivens issue in interlocutory appeal on qualified immunity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED For decades, this Court has vigilantly enforced the final judgment rule codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1291, emphasizing the “modest scope” of the “small class” of collateral orders from which an interlocutory appeal may be taken. See, eg., Mohawk Indus. Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106-07 (2009). And for nearly as long, this Court has admonished courts of appeals not to bootstrap issues onto collateral-order appeals that are not themselves interlocutorily appealable. See, e.g., Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 49-50 (1995). Yet in respondent’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit sua sponte bootstrapped a liability issue—announcing a categorical prohibition against border-related damages remedies under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), without even reaching qualified immunity. The Questions Presented are: 1. In an interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, does a court of appeals always have jurisdiction under § 1291 to decide whether a Bivens remedy exists for the claim against which the appellant asserts qualified immunity? 2. Are Bivens claims categorically precluded at the border, even when the plaintiff is a US. citizen who challenges mistreatment on U.S. soil by federal lawenforcement officers performing traditional lawenforcement duties?