Robert Boule operated a bed-and-breakfast near the Canadian border and alleged that a Border Patrol agent searched his property and retaliated against him after Boule complained about the search. Boule sought damages directly under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal courts should not extend the implied damages remedy recognized in Bivens to these claims. National-security and border-enforcement considerations, together with the existence of alternative mechanisms for redress, made the judiciary an inappropriate forum to create a new cause of action. The Court also held that the proper inquiry is whether there is any reason to pause before extending Bivens, not whether the case is materially similar to earlier implied-remedy decisions. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and rejected Boule’s proposed damages remedy.