Unreasonable use of force

The Supreme Court has decided to limit damage suits against government officials in Hernandez vs. Mesa. However, the court’s more liberal justices dissented from the ruling.

On the border between the United States and Mexico, controlled by the United States, U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa fatally shot Sergio Hernández, a 15-year-old Mexican boy, seemingly without justification or provocation.

At the time of the shooting, Mesa was in U.S. territory, while Hernández was on Mexican soil. Hernández’s family sued Agent Mesa for damages, arguing that his arbitrary use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment.

Under the US Constitution, courts perform an essential checking function on the political branches of government, ensuring compliance with the Constitution’s protection of individual rights.

In another case: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, allows individuals to seek monetary compensation from federal officials who have violated their constitutional rights.

Agent Mesa countered that the Fourth Amendment does not apply because Hernández was standing in Mexican territory at the time of the shooting. In a divided decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Hernández family could not assert a claim under the Fourth Amendment because Hernández was a Mexican citizen who was on Mexican territory at the time of the shooting. Hernández’s family then petitioned the Supreme Court to review this decision.

Constitutional Accountability Center Civil Rights Director David Gans attended today’s argument and issued the following reaction:

“In an Oval Office meeting back in March, President Trump reportedly suggested that U.S. Border Patrol agents “shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down.”

During today’s oral argument, Trump’s Department of Justice argued that persons killed or harmed by Border Patrol agents, even within the United States, should have no right to go to court to remedy the acts of such rogue border guards. In their view, the courthouse doors must be firmly closed against any efforts to hold Border Patrol agents accountable to the Constitution. The Supreme Court shouldn’t sanction a Constitution-free zone at the border that would allow U.S. Border Patrol agents to shoot to kill without any possibility of redress.

It seems that Hernandez vs. Mesa showsf the court’s determination to limit damage suits against government officials.

Congressman Joaquin Castro Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court 5-4 decision on Hernandez vs. Mesa:

“Sergio was an unarmed child when he was gunned down across the border by US Border Patrol Agent Mesa. Because of today’s decision, the Hernandez family now has no path to seek justice for his murder. This ruling means that moving forward, no one, not even unarmed children or their families, have the right to sue a federal agent for a cross-border shooting. This decision comes at a time when thousands of asylum seekers are being forced to live in camps along the border because of the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy. If children like Sergio - who was just playing along the border - can be murdered without recourse then CBP agents know that they will not be held accountable for similar crimes.

He went on to say: “Justice Ginsberg rightly noted that this was not an isolated incident. It’s become abundantly clear that Trump’s Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection are out of control and must be reined in.