Whether a Bivens cause of action exists for Fourth Amendment claims against federal officers operating under a different legal mandate or not involving a search/arrest inside a home

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Because “recognizing a Bivens cause of action is ‘a disfavored judicial activity,” it is settled that no Bivens action exists where “there is any rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to ‘weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022) (quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 135, 136 (2017)). To guide lower courts, this Court has identified “several examples of new [Bivens] contexts” where “a court is not undoubtedly better positioned than Congress to create a damages action.” Id. Two such examples are when the “legal mandate under which the officer was operating” or “the constitutional right at issue” differs from that in Bivens, which involved federal narcotics officers conducting a warrantless search and arrest inside a home without probable cause. Abbasi, 582 U.S. at 140. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for Fourth Amendment claims against federal officers operating under a different legal mandate than the narcotics officers in Bivens. 2. Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for Fourth Amendment claims not involving a search or arrest inside a home.