Supreme Court of the United States

Facts

Fifteen year old and Mexican nationalist, Sergio Hernandez was playing with friends as they did regularly on the cement culvert of the Rio Grande that divides Texas to Mexico. It was game the young boys played running from side to side to touch the barbed wire fence. On June 7, 2010 U.S Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa fired approximately two shots towards Sergio Hernandez, with one bullet hitting his head which led to his death. After the death of Sergio Hernandez, his parents sued U.

S Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, in federal district court in Texas. The allegations included that Mesa violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution due to the use of extensive force when making the arrest and the deadly use of force against the young man.

Legal Question

Did the U.S Border Patrol agent violate the application of the Fifth Amendment due to his conduct in excessive and deadly force used on an unarmed citizen of Mexico?

Under Bivens v Six Unknown Fed. Agents can the claim be applied in this case as it questions if federal agents are liable for damages after violating constitutional human rights?

Can qualified immunity be denied or granted based on case facts that the Border Patrol Agent was not aware of the legal status of the victim during the time of the shooting?

Court’s Ruling

The majority decision was delivered to conclude that qualified immunity would not be granted due to facts of the case that were not known to the officer at the time of the event. Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agent the court should keep in mind whether an implied right of action is reasonable before questioning in regards to the Fourth Amendment.

Court’s Rationale

The Court argues that Mesa is allowed to qualified immunity under the law. Justifying that the Court should keep in mind Mesa’s state of mind in terms of facts he was aware of at the time of the incident. The Court decided it does not assume that Mesa was aware that Sergio Hernandez was a U.S citizen if he was not aware. The appropriate question the Court find necessary is whether any officer put in place of Mesa would know that the shooting was a violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Court was specific in differentiating the difference of the Fifth Amendment to the Fourth Amendment, in terms of the use of force on an individual regardless of the nationality of the victim.

Concurring

Justice Thomas concurred the decision writing he would have ruled for the Border Patrol agent on Bivens. Under the Bivens action collected from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 456 F.2d 1339 (1972), the Supreme Court held that a violation of an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights by federal officers can lead to a federal cause of action following damages for an unlawful search and seizure.

Dissent

In a separate dissent written by Justice Breyer joined by Justice Ginsburg, agreed with the original statement of the plaintiff’s input of the Fourth Amendment. Arguing that the extraneous claim of the Constitution was only based off of operational arguments rather than formal ones. The U.S Border Patrol Agent did not know whether the victim was a Mexican or American citizen, nor did he know the bullet would land on U.S or Mexican soil therefore he argued the Fourth Amendment is unavailable. Justice Gorsuch did not provide a dissent nor a concurring opinion.

Did you like this example?

813

43