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
February 25, 2020

Court says Mexicans cannot sue Border Patrol agents in fatal shootings

Cronkite News (Arizona PBS)
“The court has closed the courthouse doors on those victimized by federal officers, leaving them...
By: David H. Gans, By McKenzie Sadeghi
Access to Justice
November 12, 2019

RELEASE: Will the Supreme Court Sanction a Constitution-Free Zone at the Border?

“The Supreme Court shouldn’t sanction a Constitution-free zone at the border that would allow U.S....
By: David H. Gans
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 considered 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...