Access to Justice

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. Border Patrol agents to shoot to kill without any possibility of redress.” CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans

WASHINGTON – Oral argument was held this afternoon at the Supreme Court in Hernández v. Mesa, a case that asks whether the surviving family of a Mexican teenager, shot and killed in Mexico by a U.S. Border Patrol agent who was on the U.S. side of the border, may sue the agent for damages. Constitutional Accountability Center Civil Rights Director David Gans attended today’s argument and issued the following reaction:

In an Oval Office meeting back in March, President Trump reportedly suggested that U.S. Border Patrol agents “shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down.” During today’s oral argument, Trump’s Department of Justice argued that persons killed or harmed by Border Patrol agents, even within the United States, should have no right to go to court to remedy the acts of such rogue border guards. In their view, the courthouse doors must be firmly closed against any efforts to hold Border Patrol agents accountable to the Constitution. The Supreme Court shouldn’t sanction a Constitution-free zone at the border that would allow U.S. Border Patrol agents to shoot to kill without any possibility of redress.

#

Resources:

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

“Shoot Migrants’ Legs, Build Alligator Moat: Behind Trump’s Ideas for Border,” New York Times, Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, October 1, 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/trump-border-wars.html

##

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, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

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

NAACP v. xAI

In NAACP v. xAI, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether the federal government can block people harmed by the operation of a massive power plant near their homes from...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Nielsen v. Watanabe

In Nielsen v. Watanabe, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal prisoner has a legal remedy when federal prison staff violate his Eighth Amendment rights.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Access to Justice
June 23, 2026

CAC Release: In Deeply Disappointing Decision, Supreme Court Ignores Ordinary Meaning of Statute and Denies Victims of Torture Their Day in Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Cisco Systems v. Doe,...
By: Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
June 23, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Undermines Important Right Created by Congress

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Landor v. Louisiana Department...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Access to Justice
June 18, 2026

CAC Release: Court Further Muddies the Waters on the Scope of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine in Majority Opinion that Ignores Critical Reconstruction-Era History Regarding the Role of Federal Courts as the Chief Guardians of Federal Rights

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in T.M. v. University of...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen