JESUS C. HERNANDEZ v. JESUS MESA, JR
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, June 26, 2017,
Qualified Immunity – A US border agent who shot across the border into Mexico is only entitled to qualified immunity under the Fourth Amendment if he would have reasonably believed that the person he shot had no significant ties to the United States
Facts:
In 2010, a 15-year-old boy named Sergio Hernandez was shot and killed by US Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa across the border between the United States and Mexico. Hernandez’ parents filed suit in the United States for the border agent’s alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In the lawsuit, Hernandez’ parents claimed that Hernandez was “unarmed and unthreatening” at the time he was shot.
Note: A US DOJ investigation concluded that the shooting “occurred while smugglers attempting an illegal border crossing hurled rocks from close range at [Agent Mesa] who was attempting to detain a suspect.” However, in deciding whether to dismiss a case courts will assume that all of the facts claimed in the lawsuit are true.
The case was dismissed and Hernandez appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that Hernandez had no rights under the Fourth Amendment because he was not in the United States at the time but that he did have rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Circuit held that Mesa was not entitled to qualified immunity because “no reasonable officer would have understood Agent Mesa’s alleged conduct to be lawful.”
The entire Fifth Circuit (en banc) then reconsidered the case and decided to grant qualified immunity to the officer because established case law did not demonstrate that he could not unreasonably shoot an individual on the other side of the border.
Held: Because “Hernández’s nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to Mesa at the time of the shooting,” qualified immunity would only apply if a reasonable officer in Mesa’s position would have known that Mesa was not a US citizen and had no significant ties to the United States.
Qualified Immunity- An official is protected by qualified immunity only if his conduct ‘does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’
Qualified Immunity- To determine whether “a right is clearly established,” the question is “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Facts learned after the situation are irrelevant to whether or not qualified immunity applies.
Constitutional Tort- The right to sue a federal official for a violation of the United States Constitution is not unlimited. It does not apply where there are special factors suggesting that the legislative branch needs to allow the suit.
US Constitution – The Supreme Court has held that the phrase “the people” used in the US Constitution, specifically the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, only protects US Citizens or those with a significant, voluntary connection to the United States. Because of this, the 4th Amendment does not apply to actions taken by the government outside of the United States when they do not affect a US Citizen or a non-citizen with significant, voluntary connections to the United States.