Border-shooting case could have implications for drone victims, Supreme Court says

Adjust Comment Print

The Supreme Court struggled over a case implicating a U.S. Border Patrol agent in the cross-border shooting of a Mexican national in the border zone near El Paso, Texas during oral arguments on Tuesday.

Government attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that the protections of the Constitution should not be extended to a Mexican youth on Mexican soil, even if the Border Patrol agent who shot him was standing in the the time.

When a U.S. agent standing on U.S. territory shoots a Mexican citizen standing on the other side of the border, has he violated the Mexican's rights under the U.S. Constitution? In a court filing, the USA government used that fact to bolster its argument that Guereca's location nullified his family's right to bring the case in American courts, writing that the right to a lawsuit "should not be extended to aliens injured overseas".

Supreme Court justices debated border shootings and drone strikes Tuesday in a case that could preview the legal battle over President Trump's proposed ban on foreign travelers from certain Muslim-majority countries. It said the decisions by the lower courts "failed to take due account of the binding worldwide human rights obligations that the United States has voluntarily undertaken to Mexico and its nationals". Sergio ran past Mesa and hid behind a pillar on the Mexican side of the border beneath a bridge.

Hilliard fumbled, until Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed dryly that under the argument Hilliard had put forth in his brief, neither military nor intelligence personnel could be sued.

Hernandez was shot dead on June 7, 2010.

However, the justices could choose to hold the case until a ninth justice arrives, mostly likely in two months.

The case is one of three the justices now are considering that concern the extent to which the U.S. Constitution provides rights to non-U.S. citizens.

Kennedy said the Mexican and American governments should resolve the case, noting that the border "is one of the most sensitive areas in foreign affairs".

They have also said that prior to the shooting, their son was playing a game in which he and a group of other kids would run down the Mexican side of the culvert, then up the other and touch the fence on the USA side of the border before hurrying back. Or if he had been a USA citizen, it would not have mattered that Mesa was on one side of the border and he was on the other. "Courts examining both issues are weighing whether foreigners can have their day in USA courts".

2 police officers, suspect shot in Whittier
Authorities have not released many other details, and it was not immediately clear what prompted the shooting. Los Angeles County Fire Dispatch Supervisor Art Marrujo said the suspect was treated for gunshot wounds.

Kennedy seemed unwilling to take that step, saying the Hernandez shooting would be an "extraordinary case" in which to allow a lawsuit against a federal official.

"The Supreme Court has made clear before that the U.S. Constitution doesn't only protect U.S. citizens".

The families and individuals who were subjected to such unjust treatment and whose traumatic experiences have led to untold harms are entitled to pursue legal remedies for violations of their constitutional rights - as courts have long recognized that constitutional protections extend to noncitizens.

Brewer said she would be satisfied with other means - technology, air surveillance or putting boots on the ground - to monitor areas where it may just be too hard to build the wall. Fourth, it was one of the most fundamental rights, the right to life.

"I understand that the maintenance of the culvert is a joint maintenance; however, the laws of the United States do not apply beyond the middle of the culvert", argued Mesa's lawyer, Randolph Ortega.

Markey added that instead of trying to construct barriers, the Trump administration should work with Mexican leaders to stop opioids and other drugs from entering the U.S.

"Wars have been fought to establish borders".

Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically the deciding vote, questioned whether the case could be brought at all.

"President Trump's proposal for "building a wall" is completely divorced from the geographic, human, and economic reality on the border". Six Unknown Named Agents, which allows people harmed by federal officials to sue for monetary damages.

The case is Hernandez v. Mesa (15-118).