Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Hernandez v. Mesa (2019)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Hernandez v. Mesa
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: November 12, 2019
Decided: February 25, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
5-4
Majority
Samuel Alito •  Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Hernandez v. Mesa is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 12, 2019, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.[1]

The court affirmed the decision of the 5th Circuit in a 5-4 ruling, holding that the plaintiffs cannot sue the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent for damages under the U.S. Constitution and that the Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics (Bivens) holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting.[2] Click here for more information.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Hernandez v. Mesa in 2016. At the time, SCOTUS vacated the 5th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case so the 5th Circuit might reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017). Click here for more information on the outcome of Hernandez v. Mesa in 2016.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2010, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Hernandez. The Hernandez family filed charges against Mesa. The Western District of Texas dismissed the case. After several appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Hernandez v. Mesa in 2016. At that time, SCOTUS vacated the 5th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case so the 5th Circuit might reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017). On remand, the 5th Circuit ruled the Hernandez family could not rely on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to file charges and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.
  • The issue: Whether, when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)?[3]
  • The outcome: In a 5-4 ruling, the court affirmed the ruling of the 5th Circuit, holding that the plaintiffs cannot sue the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent for damages under the U.S. Constitution and that the Bivens holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • February 25, 2020: U.S. Supreme court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling.
    • November 12, 2019: Oral argument
    • May 28, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • June 15, 2018: Jesus Hernandez, petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • March 20, 2018: The 5th Circuit affirmed the ruling of the Western District of Texas.

    Background

    See also: Hernandez v. Mesa (2016)

    On June 7, 2010, Sergio Hernandez, a 15-year-old Mexican national, was playing with a group of friends near a culvert separating the United States and Mexico. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, while on duty, shot and fatally wounded Hernandez.[4]

    Hernandez's parents filed charges against the United States, against Mesa, and against unknown federal employees. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the charges against the United States, against Mesa, and against the federal employees. Hernandez's family appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. On June 30, 2014, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court's ruling as it pertained to alleged Fifth Amendment violations against Mesa. Sitting en banc on April 14, 2015, the 5th Circuit affirmed the panel's dismissal of claims against the United States and against Mesa's supervisors. The court reversed the circuit panel's holding that Hernandez could bring a claim under the Fifth Amendment against Mesa.[5]

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on February 21, 2017. On June 26, 2017, SCOTUS issued a per curiam opinion that vacated the 5th Circuit's judgment. SCOTUS remanded the case so the 5th Circuit might reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017).

    On remand, the 5th Circuit ruled the Hernandez family could not rely on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (Bivens) to file charges, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case.[4] SCOTUS decided Bivens in 1971, holding an individual could file a lawsuit seeking damages from federal officials for violating the Constitution.[6]

    The Hernandez family appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court again, arguing the 5th Circuit "repeatedly misinterpreted and misapplied" Abbasi and the misinterpretations "are problematic not only in their own right, but because of the impact they would have, if left intact, on future Bivens claims."[7]

    The petitioner presented two questions and SCOTUS granted the petition as to Question 1.[1]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

    Questions presented:
    • Whether, when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)?[3]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the 5th Circuit, holding that the plaintiffs cannot sue the U.S. Border Patrol agent for damages under the U.S. Constitution and that the Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics (Bivens) holding does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court.[2]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[2]

    “ These factors can all be condensed to the concern for respecting the separation of powers. The most important question is whether Congress or the courts should create a damages remedy. Here the answer is Congress. Congress’s failure to act does not compel the Court to step into its shoes.[8] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.[2]

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:

    “ The Court correctly applies our precedents to conclude that the implied cause of action created in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents should not be extended to cross-border shootings. I therefore join its opinion.


    I write separately because, in my view, the time has come to consider discarding the Bivens doctrine altogether. The foundation for Bivens—the practice of creating implied causes of action in the statutory context—has already been abandoned. And the Court has consistently refused to extend the Bivens doctrine for nearly 40 years, even going so far as to suggest that Bivens and its progeny were wrongly decided. Stare decisis provides no “veneer of respectability to our continued application of [these] demonstrably incorrect precedents.”[9] ... To ensure that we are not “perpetuat[ing] a usurpation of the legislative power,” ... we should reevaluate our continued recognition of even a limited form of the Bivens doctrine.


    ... The analysis underlying Bivens cannot be defended. We have cabined the doctrine’s scope, undermined its foundation, and limited its precedential value. It is time to correct this Court’s error and abandon the doctrine altogether.[8]

    		”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.[2]

    In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:[2]

    “ In Bivens, this Court held that injured plaintiffs could pursue claims for damages against U.S. officers for conduct disregarding constitutional constraints. The instant suit, invoking Bivens, arose in tragic circumstances. In 2010, the complaint alleges, a Mexican teenager was playing with friends in a culvert along the United States-Mexico border. A U.S. Border Patrol agent, in violation of instructions controlling his office and situated on the U.S. side of the border, shot and killed the youth on the Mexican side. ... At the time of the incident, it is uncontested, the officer did not know whether the boy he shot was a U.S. national or a citizen of another land. ... When the case first reached this Court, the Court remanded it, instructing the Court of Appeals to resolve a threshold question: Is a Bivens remedy available to non-citizens (here, the victim’s parents) when the U.S. officer acted stateside, but the impact of his alleged wrongdoing was suffered abroad? To that question, the sole issue now before this Court, I would answer “yes.” Rogue U.S. officer conduct falls within a familiar, not a “new,” Bivens setting. Even if the setting could be characterized as “new,” plaintiffs lack recourse to alternative remedies, and no “special factors” counsel against a Bivens remedy. Neither U.S. foreign policy nor national security is in fact endangered by the litigation. Moreover, concerns attending the application of our law to conduct occurring abroad are not involved, for plaintiffs seek the application of U.S. law to conduct occurring inside our borders. I would therefore hold that the plaintiffs' complaint crosses the Bivens threshold.


    ... I resist the conclusion that “nothing” is the answer required in this case. I would reverse the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and hold that plaintiffs can sue Mesa in federal court for violating their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.[8]

    		”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.[2]


    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]


    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Hernandez v. Mesa," accessed June 6, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Supreme Court of the United States, Hernandez v. Mesa, decided February 25, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Questions presented: 17-1678 Hernandez v. Mesa," accessed June 6, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, Hernandez v. Mesa, March 20, 2018
    5. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Jesus C. Hernadez et al. v. United States of America et al., April 24, 2015
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices reverse in part on Indiana abortion law," May 28, 2019
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit," accessed June 6, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Stare decisis," accessed February 25, 2020
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Hernández v. Mesa," argued November 12, 2019
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Hernández v. Mesa," argued November 12, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Hernandez_v._Mesa_(2019)&oldid=9117226"