Hernandez v. Mesa

Last updated
Hernandez v. Mesa
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 12, 2019
Decided February 25, 2020
Full case nameJesus C. Hernandez, et al. v. Jesus Mesa Jr., et al.
Docket no. 17-1678
Citations589 U.S. ( more )
140 S. Ct. 735; 206 L. Ed. 2d 29
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior
  • Motion to dismiss granted, Hernandez v. United States, 802 F. Supp. 2d 834 (W.D. Tex. 2011);
  • Affirmed in part, reversed in part, 757 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2014);
  • Rehearing en banc granted, 771 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 2014);
  • Dismissal affirmed on rehearing en banc, 785 F.3d 117 (5th Cir. 2015);
  • Cert. granted, sub. nom., Hernandez v. Mesa, 137 S. Ct. 291 (2016);
  • Vacated and remanded, Hernandez v. Mesa,No. 15-118, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 2003 (2017);
  • Dismissal affirmed on remand, 885 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2018);
  • Cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2636 (2019);
Holding
Bivens ' holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas, joined by Gorsuch
DissentGinsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV, V

Hernandez v. Mesa was a pair of United States Supreme Court cases (582 U.S. ____ (2017) and 589 U.S. ____ (2020)) in which the court held that the precedent established under the 1971 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents decision did not extend to claims based on cross-border shootings.

Contents

The case centered on the 2010 shooting of a Mexican teenager on the Mexican side of the Mexico–United States border by a U.S. Border Patrol agent who was standing on the U.S. side of the border at the time he fired his weapon. The case, heard through the Fifth Circuit, had reached the Supreme Court twice, first in 2017 and again in 2019. Both times, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the agent could not be sued for his actions. At the time of the 2017 hearing, the Supreme Court had just ruled in Ziglar v. Abbasi , another case involving Bivens which introduced special considerations for these types of cases; and the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth's decision in Hernandez and remanded the case to be reheard on the basis of Ziglar. On its appeal in 2019, the Court decided the situation was an international one that required a diplomatic solution to be set by Congress rather than a civil one determined by the courts, and upheld the Fifth Circuit's ruling.

Background

Case history

On June 7, 2010, Jesus Mesa Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol agent, shot and killed Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca in the cement culvert separating Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. At the time of the shooting, Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican boy, was standing on the Mexican side of the Mexico–United States border, while the agent was on the American side. Hernández Güereca and several other boys had been playing around in the culvert – running up to touch the fence on the U.S. side of the border and then running back into Mexico. The agent claimed after the shooting that he had used deadly force because the boys had been throwing rocks at him. Cell phone video contradicted that claim. [1]

The shooting led to a protracted court case which has examined whether the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protected Hernández Güereca's life even though he was not standing on U.S. soil, and whether Mesa could claim qualified immunity for his actions as a U.S. law enforcement officer. [2] [3] [4] [5]

Initial consideration in lower courts

The Mexican government indicted Mesa for murder for the killing, but the U.S. refused to extradite him to Mexico. [1] [6] The U.S. Department of Justice investigated the incident, but declined to prosecute Mesa. [6]

Hernández Güereca's parents alleged that Mesa's actions violated his civil rights under the Fourth and Fifth amendments, and filed a claim citing the Bivens precedent, a 1971 Supreme Court case that established an implied cause of action for violations of civil rights by federal agents. [6] The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed the case. [7] However, a panel of judges for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Hernández Güereca had 5th Amendment rights, and that these rights had been violated when Mesa killed him. [8] The panel further said that Mesa could not claim qualified immunity for his actions, as "no reasonable officer would have understood Agent Mesa's alleged conduct to be lawful." [9] There was then a rehearing by the full panel en banc in the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the prior panel and unanimously reaffirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case, saying that regardless of whether Hernández Güereca had 5th Amendment rights or not, Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity because he could not have been aware that his actions would not qualify for immunity under the circumstances, since there had not been prior case law to settle the issue. [10] [6] [9]

At the Supreme Court

First consideration and its aftermath

The case was then heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in February 2017.

Majority opinion

In June 2017, the Supreme Court reversed part of the Court of Appeals's ruling and requested reconsideration by the Court of Appeals to address Hernández Güereca's claim of 4th Amendment rights [6] and the impact of another Supreme Court decision that was reached at about the same time in the case of Ziglar v. Abbasi . [1] [11] [9] [ clarification needed ] Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case, as he had joined the court after the case was heard.

Dissents

Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent, as did Stephen Breyer, who was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Thomas said he would have restricted the application of the prior rulings to not apply to cross-border actions and would have simply affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. [9] Breyer and Ginsburg said that since the incident occurred in a border zone of overlapping jurisdiction in which both governments had a management responsibility, and since Mesa also could not have known for certain whether Hernández Güereca was a U.S. citizen or not, his actions should be judged as if they had occurred within the United States. [9]

Reconsideration in lower court

The Court of Appeals then again upheld the dismissal of the case by the lower court. [12] [1]

Second consideration

The case reached the Supreme Court for a second time in November 2019. [1] On behalf of the Trump Administration, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions of border agents should be immune from liability even if the entire incident had clearly occurred within the United States "ten miles from the border". [6] The Mexican government filed an amicus brief saying that failing to provide an effective remedy when fundamental rights were violated would undermine U.S. human rights obligations, saying that "A nation's obligations to respect human rights do not stop at its borders but apply anywhere that the nation exercises effective control." [6]

Majority opinion

The Court issued its decision on February 25, 2020, which upheld the Fifth Circuit decision. [13] Writing for a 5–4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled against Hernandez and held that the Court's precedent under Bivens did not extend to cross-border shootings. The Court concluded that the petitioners Bivens claim arose under a new and significantly different context (a cross-border shooting) than in previous claims by other defendants and also concluded that expanding Bivens would interfere with the executive branch's lead role in setting foreign policy and also interfere with border security. The majority opinion also stated that the Supreme Court would violate constitutional separation of powers by extending Bivens to additional categories of cases and that it is up to the United States Congress to design a remedy for this type of case. [14]

Concurrence

Writing separately, Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the majority opinion but also said that Bivens may have been wrongly decided and should be discarded as a precedent. In his concurrence, he said that in recent years the Supreme Court has been less and less willing to create or expand implied causes of action beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized by statute. He cited as an example Alexander v. Sandoval , a 2001 case in which the Supreme Court rejected the idea that a court could create an implied private right action under a regulation enacted under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. He asserted that adhering even to a limited form of Bivens risks usurping the power of the legislature. [14]

Dissent

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. In her dissent, Ginsburg stated that the circumstances of the cross-border shooting were not in fact a "new" context under the Bivens analysis and that the majority opinion was incorrect in suggesting that foreign policy or national security would be impaired by allowing the litigation to go forward. She referred to the strong similarities between the current case as well as the circumstances under the original Bivens case, as well as the fact that the United States has the authority to govern the conduct of its U.S. Border Patrol officers. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was a case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that an implied cause of action existed for an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The victim of such a deprivation could sue for the violation of the Fourth Amendment itself despite the lack of any federal statute authorizing such a suit. The existence of a remedy for the violation was implied by the importance of the right violated.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. Following a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the United States Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by U.S. postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution, which was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled, 5-2, that in order to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the Fourth Amendment's border search exception and balloon swallowing.

In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. The doctrine is not regarded as an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to its requirement for a warrant or probable cause. Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior, the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the government at the border. This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4-2, that unlawfully present aliens arrested in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot sue for money high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that top government officials were not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.

<i>Schillinger v. United States</i> United States Supreme Court case

Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.

2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down thirteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the scope of qualified immunity for government officials working in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Specifically, the Supreme Court held that BLM employees could not be liable for an alleged retaliation claim against Robbins, a farm owner, because other avenues for relief were available. Though these workers may have been tough in negotiations with Robbins over access over his land, none of that rose to the level of a constitutional violation.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Robert C. Hilliard (attorney)

Robert C. Hilliard is an American civil rights and personal injury attorney notable for his United States Supreme Court argument in Hernandez vs. Mesa seeking to hold a border patrol agent accountable for the cross border shooting of a Mexican national, Sergio Hernandez. He also was appointed and served as the nation's lead lawyer for personal injury victims in the General Motors ignition switch recalls litigation, one of the largest civil litigations in the country's history.

2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case holding secret service officers who moved protesters away from the president were protected by qualified immunity. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. The case arose out of a campaign stop President George W. Bush made during the 2004 presidential campaign. Prior to the campaign event, Bush dined at a restaurant near where a group of supporters and a group of protesters had gathered. Two secret service agents directed local police to move the protesters to protect the president. The protesters sued the agents in the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon. The agents filed a motion to dismiss which was eventually granted based upon the Supreme Court's decision.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Torres v. Madrid (2021) was a United States Supreme Court case based on what constitutes a "seizure" in the context of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the immediate case, in the situation where law enforcement had attempted to use physical force to stop a suspect but failed to do so. The Court ruled in a 5–3 decision that the use of physical force with the intent to restrain a person, even if that fails to restrain the person, is considered a seizure.

Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving legal remedies that could be sought by litigants against federal officials for violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a unanimous decision issued December 10, 2020, the court ruled that the Act allowed for litigants to seek not only injunctive relief but also monetary damages.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Marimow, Ann E. (November 12, 2019). "Supreme Court seems wary of allowing families of slain Mexican teens to sue U.S. border agents". The Washington Post . Retrieved November 13, 2019.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  2. ↑ Preston, Julia (June 30, 2014). "Texas: Panel Rules Agent Can Be Sued Over Shooting Teenager Across Border". The New York Times . Retrieved July 3, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  3. ↑ "Court: Mexican family can sue over fatal Border Patrol shooting". Fox News . EFE. July 2, 2014. Archived from the original on July 9, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  4. ↑ "Mexican teenager killed by US Border Patrol agents had rights, court rules". The Guardian . Associated Press. July 1, 2014. Retrieved July 3, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  5. ↑ Inskeep, Steve (June 9, 2014). "After Shootings, Extended Silence: What The Border Patrol Hasn't Said". NPR . Retrieved July 3, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sibilla, Nick (November 13, 2019). "Border Agents Shouldn't Get Sued For Shooting Foreigners, Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court". Forbes . Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  7. ↑ Hernandez v. United States, 802F. Supp. 2d834 (W.D. Tex.2011).
  8. ↑ Hernandez v. United States, 757F.3d249 (5th Cir.2014).
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Hernandez v. Mesa,No. 15-118 , 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 2003 (2017).
  10. ↑ Hernandez v. United States, 785F.3d117 (5th Cir.2015).
  11. ↑ "Supreme Court seems split over Mexican teen's shooting death by Border Patrol agent". CBS . Associated Press. February 21, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
  12. ↑ Hernandez v. Mesa, 885F.3d811 (5th Cir.2018).
  13. ↑ Williams, Pete (February 25, 2020). "Supreme Court rules Mexican parents can't sue Border Patrol agent who killed their son". NBC News . Retrieved February 25, 2020.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
  14. 1 2 3 Hernandez v Mesa , 589U.S.17-1678 , 2-3(2020).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.