Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing a Bivens remedy in this case, where the claim arises from an arrest made outside the home, in a place open to the public, pursuant to a warrant

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly cautioned against extending the implied damages remedy created in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Before allowing putative Bivens actions to proceed, courts must ask “whether the case presents a ‘new Bivens context’”—1.e., whether it is “‘meaningful[ly]’ different from the three cases in which the Court has [previously] implied a damages action.” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 492 (2022). If so, Bivens cannot be extended where “ ‘special factors’ indicat[e] that the Judiciary is at least arguably less equipped than Congress to ‘weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.’” Id. at 492. “[A]ny rational reason (even one) to think that Congress is better suited to ‘weigh the costs and benefits’” precludes Bivens’ extension. Id. at 496. Here, the Seventh Circuit allowed a Bivens action arising from the alleged use of excessive force in effecting an arrest, in a hotel lobby, pursuant to a warrant. The court agreed that, while the arrest in Bivens occurred in the plaintiff’s home, the arrest here occurred in a location open to the public. And while Bivens involved warrantless conduct, the officer here was executing a judicially issued warrant. Contrary to the decisions of other courts of appeals, the decision below deemed each of those differences trivial; held they do not present a new Bivens context; and allowed the Bivens claim to proceed. “Hotel” lobby “or home, warrant or no warrant,” the court declared, there was “no meaningful difference” from Bivens. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing a Bivens remedy in this case, where the claim arises from an arrest made outside the home, in a place open to the public, pursuant to a warrant. (i)