The Supreme Court Just Held That A Border Guard Who Shot A Child Will Face No Consequences

Hernandez v. Mesa ends with a decid­ed­ly Trumpy result.

Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican boy, was with his friends near the US-Mexican bor­der when one of those friends was detained by US Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa. Hernández ran onto Mexican soil, and Mesa fired two shots at the boy — one of which struck him in the face and killed him.

Hernández and his fam­i­ly dis­agree about the events that led up to this shoot­ing. The fam­i­ly says that Hernández and his friends were sim­ply play­ing a game where they would run to the fence that sep­a­rates the United States from Mexico, touch it, then run back to their own country’s soil. Mesa claims that Hernández and his friends threw rocks at him. (Significantly, the Justice Department has refused to take any action against Mesa.)

Regardless of who is telling the truth, the ques­tion in the Hernández case is whether Mesa is immune from a fed­er­al law­suit even if he shot and killed Hernández in cold blood. The Supreme Court held, in a 5 – 4 deci­sion along famil­iar par­ti­san lines, that Mesa can­not be sued.

The case turns upon whether the Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), which per­mit­ted fed­er­al law­suits against law enforce­ment offi­cers who vio­late the Constitution, has any real force in 2020. After Justice Samuel Alito’s opin­ion in Hernández, the answer to this ques­tion is a resound­ing “no.” 

Alito’s opin­ion does not explic­it­ly over­rule Bivens, but it appears to be lay­ing the ground­work for a future opin­ion that will elim­i­nate Bivens’ pro­tec­tions against fed­er­al offi­cers who vio­late the Constitution. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a sep­a­rate opin­ion in which he argues that “the time has come to con­sid­er dis­card­ing the Bivens doc­trine altogether.”

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, briefly explained

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights places a num­ber of restric­tions on law enforce­ment, includ­ing the Fourth Amendment’s ban on “unrea­son­able search­es and seizures.” But the Constitution is silent about whether an indi­vid­ual offi­cer may be sued if they vio­late one of these restric­tions. Although a fed­er­al law does per­mit suits against state law enforce­ment offi­cers who vio­late “any rights, priv­i­leges, or immu­ni­ties secured by the Constitution and laws,” there is no such statute that explic­it­ly autho­rizes suits against fed­er­al agents.

Read the full sto­ry here; https://​www​.vox​.com/​2​0​2​0​/​2​/​2​5​/​2​1​1​5​2​6​4​3​/​s​u​p​r​e​m​e​-​c​o​u​r​t​-​h​e​r​n​a​n​d​e​z​-​m​e​s​a​-​b​i​v​e​n​s​-​b​o​r​d​e​r​-​g​u​a​r​d​-​c​r​o​s​s​-​m​e​x​ico