About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (November 7, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbbww0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Bivens at the Border: Supreme Court to Consider Whether Cross-Border Shooting Case Can Proceed November 7, 2019 On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Hernndez v Alea, a case arising from the fatal shooting across the United States-Mexico border of 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Adrian Hernandez Giereca by Customs and Border Protection Officer Jesus C. Mesa Jr. The victim's family brought suit seeking money damages pursuant to Bivens vSi Unknwn Aenwd Agentts of F.bderal Bureau of Aircotics, a 1971 Supreme Court decision holding that federal officers may be sued for certain constitutional violations despite the absence of a statutory cause of action. However, the Court has indicated in the decades following Bivens that this relief is only available in narrow factual circumstances. In its 2017 decision, Ziglar v Abbasi, the Court appears to shut the door on recognizing new situations, raising questions over the availability of a remedy for constitutional violations by federal officials. Herndndez raises a number of legal issues with significant implications. A decision in Herndndez may address the continued viability of Bivens post-Abbasi. Herndndez also raises an issue as to the extraterritorial reach of Bivens when the alleged unconstitutional conduct-particularly cross-border actions-results in an injury to a non-U.S. national on foreign soil. Herndndez further poses a question about the scope and effect of several factors-concerns of national security, foreign affairs, and alternative legal remedies-on the availability of a Bivens remedy post-Abbasi. Bivens Jurisprudence Although a plaintiff may sue state officers for money damages for constitutional violations under federal law, no comparable statute gives a plaintiff the right to bring suit againstfederal officers for constitutional violations. Despite congressional silence on the matter, the Supreme Court held in Btwens that the plaintiff in that case-who claimned federal agents arrested and searched him without probable cause and with excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment-could pursue his claim under a judicially created private cause of action for money damages. Bivens rests on the premise that where a constitutional right has been invaded, the plaintiff is entitled to a remedy-whether statutory or judicially created. Justice Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10361 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and C om m ittees ot C onr ess -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------