Access to Justice

Hernández v. Mesa

In Hernández v. Mesa, the Supreme Court is considering whether a U.S. Border Patrol agent can be sued for monetary compensation for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures.

Case Summary

In a culvert 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, 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. 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 en banc 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.

In October 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and asked the parties to brief the additional question of whether the Hernández family had a right to sue for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), a case that allows individuals to seek monetary compensation from federal officials who have violated their constitutional rights. CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Hernández family arguing that the family members could sue under Bivens. In June 2017, the Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit to reconsider the Bivens question in light of the Court’s intervening decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017). The en banc Fifth Circuit then held that the Hernández family could not sue under Bivens. The family again petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in May 2019.

As we did in 2016, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to hold that the Hernández family may bring suit under Bivens to remedy abuse of government power and ensure compliance with the limits that the Fourth Amendment places on the use of force by law enforcement officers. In our brief, we explain that Article III of the Constitution created a federal judiciary with broad power to enforce the Constitution’s limitations on government power. Under our Constitution, courts perform an essential checking function on the political branches of government, ensuring compliance with the Constitution’s protection of individual rights. Our brief further demonstrates that the Framers incorporated into Article III the crucial notion that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy for violation of that right. Furthermore, our brief shows that the Framers viewed civil damages actions—the very kind of suit permitted under Bivens—as the quintessential method of ensuring that government officers respect the limits that the Fourth Amendment places on their authority. Finally, our brief describes how courts in the Founding generation vindicated Fourth Amendment rights by granting damages remedies for unlawful seizures in common-law tort suits against the offending officers. Based on this text and history, we argue that the Hernández family is entitled to sue for damages to ensure that federal agents respect the Fourth Amendment’s limitations and maintain the rule of law.

The case will be argued on November 12, 2019.

Case Timeline

  • December 9, 2016

    CAC files a merits stage amicus brief

    Supreme Court Merits Stage Amicus Brief
  • February 21, 2017

    The Supreme Court hears oral arguments

  • June 26, 2017

    The Supreme Court remands the case back to the Fifth Circuit

  • March 20, 2018

    The en banc Fifth Circuit issues its decision

  • June 15, 2018

    The Hernández family petitions for a writ of certiorari

  • May 28, 2019

    The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case

  • August 9, 2019

    CAC files an amicus brief

    U.S. Sup. Ct. Amicus Brief
  • November 12, 2019

    The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Pitch v. United States

In Pitch v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether courts have inherent authority to release historically significant grand jury materials.
Access to Justice
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

In re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary

In In re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether to approve the House Judiciary Committee’s request for portions of Special Counsel...
Access to Justice
August 29, 2019

Rutherford Institute Challenges Government Efforts to Sidestep Rule of Law, Undermine Sixth Amendment Assurance of Right to Legal Counsel

The Rutherford Institute
Pushing back against efforts to sidestep the rule of law and disregard fundamental protections for...
Access to Justice
August 23, 2019

Tribe, Ex-Gov’t Officials Argue Against Border Wall Funding

Law360
A Native American tribe, former government officials, law professors and scores of religious groups threw...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

In Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether the ability to sue over constitutional violations is limited by a “zone of interests” test.
Access to Justice
June 1, 2019

The Border Search Muddle

Harvard Law Review
Fourth Amendment originalism is hard. But if Fourth Amendment originalism has an easy case, the...