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
May 9, 2024

RELEASE: In overbroad ruling, conservative majority restricts the rights of innocent car owners whose vehicles are seized by the government

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Culley v. Marshall, a...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Williams v. Washington

In Williams v. Washington, the Supreme Court is considering whether states may force civil rights litigants who bring claims against state officials in state court under Section 1983 to first exhaust their administrative remedies.
Access to Justice
April 12, 2024

RELEASE: Court Unanimously Rejects Atextual “Transportation Industry” Requirement for FAA Exemption, Allowing Truck Drivers Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
March 20, 2024

RELEASE: Justices Weigh Immunity for Government Officials Who Target Political Adversaries with Arrest

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gonzalez v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Access to Justice
February 20, 2024

RELEASE: Court Grapples Once Again with Federal Arbitration Act’s Exemption for Transportation Workers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Bissonnette v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Access to Justice
February 19, 2024

Bakery Drivers Head to High Court Searching for Arbitration Exit

Bloomberg Law
Industry test would add fights on transportation firm meaning With circuits split, high court to...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Jennifer Bennett