Term: 2016
Docket: 15-118
Hernandez v. Mesa
- Pro
15-118 HERNANDEZ V. MESA DECISION BELOW: 785 F.3d 117 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: “WHETHER THE CLAIM IN THIS CASE MAY BE ASSERTED UNDER BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).” CERT. GRANTED 10/11/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Boumediene v. Bush, this Court held that the Constitution's extraterritorial application "turn[s] on objective factors and practical concerns," not a "formal sovereignty-based test." 553 U.S. 723, 764 (2008). That holding is consistent with Justice Kennedy's concurrence two decades earlier in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), rejecting four Justices' formalist approach to extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The questions presented are: 1. Does a formalist or functionalist analysis govern the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unjustified deadly force, as applied to a cross-border shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen in an enclosed area controlled by the United States? 2. May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on facts-such as the victim's legal status- unknown to the officer at the time of the incident? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-50217
In the case of Hernandez v. Mesa, 2016, a Mexican national was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent on the Mexican side of the border. The victim's parents sued the agent for damages in federal court under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), which allows individuals to sue federal officers personally for violating their constitutional rights. However, it was unclear whether this right extended to non-citizens injured abroad by U.S officials. The Supreme Court initially sent back the case to lower courts after its ruling in Ziglar v Abbasi (2017) limited Bivens' scope but did not explicitly exclude cross-border shootings from its purview. Upon rehearing, however, both District and Appeals Courts dismissed claims against Agent Mesa citing that no precedent existed extending constitutional protections beyond US borders especially when dealing with issues related to national security or foreign relations. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions stating that any extension of Bivens would intrude into sensitive matters of foreign affairs where Congress has been notably hesitant to act; hence such an expansion is inappropriate.
In the dissenting opinion for Hernandez v. Mesa, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan argued that constitutional protections should extend to a non-citizen shot on foreign soil if the shooter was standing in U.S territory. They contended that it is not about extraterritorial application of constitutional rights but rather their applicability within U.S borders. The dissenters emphasized that Sergio Hernández’s location at the time of shooting shouldn't matter as much as where Agent Mesa stood when he fired his gun. They also disagreed with majority's reliance on qualified immunity doctrine which they believe encourages officers to act recklessly without fear of repercussions. Furthermore, they criticized the court's decision for leaving victims like Hernández without any legal recourse or remedy against egregious conduct by law enforcement officials.
