Justices to take up border death

U.S. agent killed Mexican boy, 15

In this Feb. 14, 2017 photo, The Supreme Court is seen at day's end in Washington. The Supreme Court on Tuesday is hearing an appeal to a case involving a 2010 shooting of a Mexican boy by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.
In this Feb. 14, 2017 photo, The Supreme Court is seen at day's end in Washington. The Supreme Court on Tuesday is hearing an appeal to a case involving a 2010 shooting of a Mexican boy by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent.

WASHINGTON -- Sixty feet and the U.S-Mexico border separated the unarmed, 15-year-old Mexican boy and the U.S. Border Patrol agent who killed him with a gunshot to the head early on a June evening in 2010.

U.S. officials chose not to prosecute Agent Jesus Mesa Jr., and the Obama administration refused a request to extradite him so that he could face criminal charges in Mexico. When the parents of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca tried to sue Mesa in an American court for violating their son's rights, federal judges dismissed their claims.

The Supreme Court today will hear the parents' appeal, which their lawyers say is their last hope for some measure of justice.

The legal issues are different, but the Supreme Court case resembles, in at least one way, the court battle over President Donald Trump's ban on travelers from seven majority Muslim nations. Courts examining both issues are weighing whether foreigners can have their day in U.S. courts.

Privacy experts also are watching the case because it could affect how courts treat global Internet surveillance, particularly when foreigners are involved. It's there that the "Fourth Amendment question in [the Hernandez case] seems to matter most," George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Precisely what happened in the cement culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, is in dispute, although the competing accounts are legally irrelevant to the court's decision.

Hernandez's family says he was messing around with his friends that day, playing a game in which they ran down the gully from the Mexican side and up the American side to touch an 18-foot fence. Mesa arrived on a bicycle and detained one person while the others scampered back across the gully, actually the dry bed of the Rio Grande River. He then shot Hernandez as he ran toward a pillar supporting an overhead rail bridge. Mesa, and other agents who arrived on the scene, rode away on their bikes without checking on Hernandez or offering medical aid, the family says.

The Justice Department said Mesa was trying to stop "smugglers attempting an illegal border crossing" and fired his gun after he came under a barrage of rocks. Mesa argues in his court filings that Hernandez was among the rock throwers.

But Robert Hilliard, the family's lawyer, said U.S. officials met privately with the parents to explain the decision not to prosecute Mesa and told them that their son had not thrown rocks. A cellphone video appears to show that Hernandez was running and trying to hide before he was shot.

Had Hernandez been shot a few feet to the north, he would have been on American soil and U.S. courts would be open to his family, Hilliard said. There's no dispute that Mesa was on the U.S. side of the border, he said.

If the family is kept out of court, Hilliard said, the Supreme Court will be saying "that 100 percent of the conduct of a domestic police officer in the United States is unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution."

The Trump administration, like its predecessor, is arguing that the location of Hernandez's death, in Mexico, should be the end of the story.

The right to sue "should not be extended to aliens injured abroad," the government said in its court filing. In addition, the government said the parents' claims under the Fourth Amendment should be dismissed because its protections against unreasonable search and seizure don't apply to noncitizens outside the United States. The government also said Mesa should be shielded from liability for the shooting, even if the family could prove he violated other rights Hernandez might be able to assert.

Judge Edward Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially voted to allow the case to proceed because "if ever a case could be said to present an official abuse of power so arbitrary as to shock the conscience," Hernandez's shooting appeared to be it. The full 5th Circuit later sided with Mesa.

A Section on 02/21/2017

Upcoming Events