Access to Justice

RELEASE: Conservative Justices Deny Accountability to Family After Cross-Border Killing of Their Son

“The bottom line take-away after today’s ruling is that U.S. border guards can continue to abuse their power with impunity.” — CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans

WASHINGTON – On news this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in Hernández v. Mesa—with the five conservative Justices voting against the family of a boy fatally shot by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent that attempted to sue for damages in federal court—Constitutional Accountability Center issued the following reaction:

CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod said, “The Court’s majority today fails to take seriously the role that the Founders assigned the courts as checks on unconstitutional government action. As Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent, the death in this case is ‘not an isolated incident.’ The result of the Court’s decision today will be as troubling as it is unsurprising: continued abuses of governmental power.”

CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans added, “The bottom line take-away after today’s ruling is that U.S. border guards can continue to abuse their power with impunity. The Court has closed the courthouse doors on those victimized by federal officers, leaving them with no remedy.”

#

Resources:

CAC case page, Hernández v. Mesa: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/hernandez-v-mesa-u-s-sup-ct/

“A Murdered Mexican Boy and the Abuse of American Power at the Border,” David Gans, The New Republic, February 20, 2017: https://newrepublic.com/article/140746/murdered-mexican-boy-abuse-american-power-border

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Reed v. Goertz

In Reed v. Goertz, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider when the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim challenging the adequacy of state procedures for seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

In FBI v. Fazaga, the Supreme Court is considering whether allegations of unlawful government surveillance may be adjudicated using procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act instead of being dismissed as a result of the...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Roe v. United States

In Roe v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether an employee of the federal judiciary can sue under the Fifth Amendment for sex discrimination experienced in the...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

J.W. v. Paley

In J.W. v. Paley, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether public school officials who use excessive physical force against students may be held accountable for violating the Fourth Amendment.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Frasier v. Evans

In Frasier v. Evans, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether police officers who knowingly violated a person’s First Amendment right to film them making an arrest are entitled to qualified immunity.
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Gonzalez v. Trevino

In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering what threshold requirements individuals must satisfy to bring First Amendment claims against a state or local official for arresting them...