Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court to decide what happens when a U.S. border agent shoots someone on the other side

Published

on

Supreme Court to decide what happens when a U.S. border agent shoots someone on the other side

There is established Supreme Court precedent that a law enforcement official can be sued for damages if they violate a person’s constitutional rights, but what if the person suing is not an American and was in another country when they were harmed?

That is the question at the core of two federal cases involving border patrol agents in the United States who allegedly fired their weapons across the border, killing individuals in Mexico. One of those cases, Hernandez v. Mesa, will be heard by the Supreme Court during its next term.

JUSTICES GINSBURG, THOMAS TRADE BARBS IN SUPREME COURT RULING ON STATE ABORTION MATTER

Generally speaking, law enforcement officials are protected by qualified immunity for actions taken in the course of their official duty, but the 1971 case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents carved out an exception that allowed for civil claims against those federal officers who are accused of violating the Constitution under the color of their official authority.

The family of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca claims that they can make what’s known as a Bivens claim against Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., who is accused of fatally shooting their son. The family claims that the teen and his friends were playing a game where they ran to touch the border fence, then ran back. Mesa allegedly fired across the border while standing on the U.S. side, with Hernandez still in Mexico.

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, the 15-year-old who was killed by a Border Patrol agent.

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, the 15-year-old who was killed by a Border Patrol agent.
(PHOTO COURTESY OF THE HERNANDEZ GUERECA FAMILY)

“The deadly practice of agents, standing in the United States and shooting innocent kids across the border must be stopped,” Hernandez family attorney Bob Hilliard said in a statement. “It’s never right. It’s never constitutional. This is one of those times when morality and our U.S. constitution line up perfectly.”

In April 2012, the Obama Justice Department told a different story. Following an investigation, they said that the shooting happened when smugglers were “attempting an illegal border crossing hurled rocks from close range at a CBP [Customs and Border Protection] agent who was attempting to detain a suspect.”

SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN VARYING DECISIONS IN HOT-BUTTON ABORTION, TRANSGENDER AND BORDER CASES

The probe involved the FBI, Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s Office, and prosecutors from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas. Officials interviewed more than 25 witnesses and reviewed video and evidence from the scene. At the conclusion of the investigation, the DOJ said there was “insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal charges,” and “that no federal civil rights charges could be pursued in this matter.”

The DOJ noted that “on these particular facts, the agent did not act inconsistently with CBP policy or training regarding use of force.” Officials also determined that they could not show that Mesa had the intent necessary for a civil rights violation, plus there was a lack of jurisdiction for a civil rights case because Hernandez was outside the U.S.

The Hernandez family’s civil case, meanwhile, has bounced up and down the judicial system. The Supreme Court first heard the case in 2017, but after a 4-4 split, sent it back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case went before the full Fifth Circuit for an en banc hearing in 2018, which resulted in the Court of Appeals ruling against the Hernandez family.

The appellate court cited several issues that led to their decision. For starters, there was the argument that a foreign person on foreign soil does not have rights under the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the court noted that because this is a matter involving the border, there are national security and foreign policy issues involved, which fall under the authority of the Executive and Legislative Branches, not the judiciary.

Speaking of the legislature, the Fifth Circuit stated that Congress has passed laws that lead them to believe that they would be against allowing civil claims in situations like this. The court pointed to the Civil Rights Act, which is limited to “citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof,” the Federal Tort Claims Act, which excludes “[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country,” and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which gives federal officials exemption from liability.

With regards to national security, the Fifth Circuit referred to a Third Circuit case where the court denied a Bivens claim against a TSA agent who was accused of violating someone’s constitutional rights.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that a border patrol agent should not be able to shoot someone and get away with it simply because the other person was on the other side of the border. “For cross-border shootings like this one,” the court pointed out, “criminal investigations and prosecutions are already a deterrent.”

That being said, the court noted that government agencies had already investigated Mesa and did not bring any charges against him.

Mesa’s attorney, Randy Ortega, believes the Fifth Circuit got it right.

“The case, in my opinion, is clear,” Ortega told Fox News. “The Constitution only provides redress for acts occurring within the United States, thus the Fifth Circuit ruling is on point. To allow those injured in foreign jurisdictions to bring suit in the United States would result in a flood of litigation and a chilling effect on those protecting our borders.”

SATANIC TEMPLE TO CHALLENGE SUPREME COURT ABORTION RULING ON FETAL REMAINS

The Mexican government got involved in the case, filing an amicus brief in support of the Hernandez family. Mexico argued that this case is far simpler than Mesa’s defense and the Fifth Circuit make it out to be. This is a case where a law enforcement official is accused of using undue deadly force against someone, they argued.

“Agent Mesa was clearly on U.S. soil when he shot Sergio Hernández, and there are no practical or political difficulties in applying U.S. law regardless of which side of the border Sergio was on,” Mexico’s brief said.

Mexico also argued that this is not a case involving national security, as it “has nothing to do with international terrorism, espionage, or any other national security concerns.”

What it boils down to, they claimed, is a law enforcement agent shooting someone “in such a way that he could have hit nationals of any country on either side of the border.”

Siding with Agent Mesa, the Trump administration filed their own amicus brief in April 2019. They supported the Supreme Court hearing the case, in light of a similar Ninth Circuit case – Swartz v. Rodriguez – that was decided the opposite way. The government stated that the Fifth Circuit, in their ruling against Hernandez, “appropriately identified several special factors that counsel against implying a damages remedy here.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

The Supreme Court will hear the case, which was consolidated with the Swartz case, during the term beginning this October. Should they reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Hernandez family would be allowed to move forward with their lawsuit against Agent Mesa, but would still have to prove their case in court.

Politics

Pelosi flexes muscle over party in impeachment debate, but ‘dam’ could collapse

Published

on

By

Pelosi flexes muscle over party in impeachment debate, but ‘dam’ could collapse

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has wielded her power to quash a faction of Democrats rallying for President Trump’s impeachment, but frustrated members within the party say the president is one misstep away from “that dam collapsing,” according to a Sunday report.

Since reassuming leadership over the house, Pelosi has thwarted her party’s liberal wing from going forward with impeachment proceedings, encouraging them to instead focus on other issues like health care.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reflects on President Donald Trump's statement that he would accept assistance from a foreign power. 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reflects on President Donald Trump’s statement that he would accept assistance from a foreign power. 
(AP)

“I don’t think there’s anything more divisive we can do than to impeach a president of the United States, and so you have to handle it with great care,” Pelosi told CNN on Sunday. “It has to be about the truth and the facts to take you to whatever decision has to be there.”

Some lawmakers say their deference to Pelosi is out of respect for the speaker’s political expertise, and agree that impeachment would do more harm than good.

NANCY PELOSI TOLD DEMS SHE WANTS TO SEE TRUMP ‘IN PRISON’: REPORT

“She is the single smartest strategist that we’ve ever had…People are not wanting to second guess her because she’s been right on so many fronts,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., told the Washington Post.

But other Democratic lawmakers, like Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., admit they toe the party line out of fear.

“One, you want to be a team player and support the leader’s position, but secondly you’re worried about your own self and…what can happen if you don’t follow along,” Schrader told the paper.

Some argue that President Trump’s defiance of congressional investigators will eventually break the divide between moderate Democrats and its liberal wing.

TRUMP APPEARS TO HAVE INADVERTENTLY INFUSED DEMOCRATIC INVESTIGATIONS AFTER ABC INTERVIEW

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Va., described Pelosi’s hold over Democrats as “fragile” because “we’re kind of one event, one piece of explosive testimony, one action by Trump away from that dam collapsing.”

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Democrats’ pro-impeachment camp howled this week after Trump said in an interview with ABC that he’d be willing to listen if a foreign government had dirt on an opponent. Yet despite the familiar refrain of impeachment, Pelosi didn’t budge an inch on impeachment after Trump’s comments.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump asks Mulvaney to leave Oval Office for coughing during ABC interview

Published

on

By

Trump asks Mulvaney to leave Oval Office for coughing during ABC interview

President Trump was apparently so perturbed by his chief of staff coughing during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office last week, that he asked his staffer to leave the room, according to a transcript from the station.

Trump had been asked a question about his tax returns when someone off camera – identified as Mulvaney – reportedly begins coughing.

“I hope they get it, because it’s a fantastic financial statement,” Trump said Stephanopoulos amid apparent coughing before saying: “And let’s do that over, he’s coughing in the middle of my answer.”

TRUMP SAYS HE WOULD ‘WANT TO HEAR’ DIRT ON 2020 RIVALS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, SUGGESTS HE WOULDN’T CONTACT FBI

“I don’t like that, you know, I don’t like that,” Trump reportedly said of Mulvaney’s coughing. “If you’re going to couch, please leave the room. You just can’t, you just can’t cough. Boy oh boy.”

“Your chief of staff,” Stephanopoulos reportedly clarified.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The interview, which was broadcast Sunday, proceeded with Trump saying although he wanted people to see his “phenomenal” financial statement, it’s “not up to me, it’s up to my lawyers.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Buttigieg says he won’t be first gay president, ‘almost certain’ we’ve had others

Published

on

By

Buttigieg says he won't be first gay president, 'almost certain' we've had others

Mayor Pete Buttigieg doesn’t believe he’ll be the first gay president if elected in 2020.

“I would imagine we’ve probably had excellent presidents who were gay — we just didn’t know which ones,” he told “Axios on HBO.”

“I mean, statistically, it’s almost certain.”

FILE: Democratic presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks at a grassroots event on Friday, June 14, 2019, in Alexandria, Va.

FILE: Democratic presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks at a grassroots event on Friday, June 14, 2019, in Alexandria, Va.
(AP)

Asked if he possibly knew which commander-in-chief was playing for the other team, the Democratic hopeful said: “My gaydar even doesn’t work that well in the present, let alone retroactively. But one can only assume that’s the case.”

BUTTIGIEG SAYS TRUMP USING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS ‘HIS OWN PERSONAL LAW FIRM’

Buttigieg — who is mayor of South Bend, Ind. — has been rising in the polls as of late. He would be the first openly gay presidential candidate, if nominated next next year.

The 37-year-old has been asked in the past about the possibility of there ever being a gay president, with BuzzFeed posing the question back in March.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“My gaydar is not great to begin with and definitely doesn’t work over long stretches of time,” he repeated. “I think we’ll just have to let the historians figure that out.”

To read more from The New York Post, click here

Continue Reading

Categories

Recent Posts

Like Us On Facebook

Trending