Supreme Court Review 2016/2017 TERM
SUNDAY, APRIL 30, 2017
CLICK HERE TO TRACK THIS CASE

Issue:  Constitution's Extraterritorial Application

Hernandez v. Mesa

15-118

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

In Boumediene v. Bush, this Court held that the Constitution’s extraterritorial application “turn[s] on objective factors and practical concerns,” not a “formal sovereignty-based test.” 553 U.S. 723, 764 (2008). That holding is consistent with Justice Kennedy’s concurrence two decades earlier in United States v. VerdugoUrquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), rejecting four Justices’formalist approach to extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The questions presented are:

1. Does a formalist or functionalist analysis govern the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly force, as applied to a cross-border shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen in an enclosed area controlled by the United States?

2. May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on facts—such as the victim’s legal status—unknown to the officer at the time of the incident?

DECISION

Fully Briefed and Argued
Awaiting Decision

ORAL ARGUMENT

Argued February 21, 2017

Appearences
On Behalf of Petitioners Jesus C. Hernandez, et al.
Robert C. Hilliard, Corpus Christi, Tex.
On Behalf of Respondent Jesus Mesa, Jr.
Randolph J. Ortega, El Paso, Tex.
On Behalf of Federal Respondents
Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Transcript
pdf download
Audio
mp3 download
Merit Briefs
Brief for Petitioner (pdf download)
Brief for Respondent (pdf download)
Reply Brief for Petitioners (pdf download)
Amicus Curiae Briefs
Brief for Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights First, and the Rutherford Institute in Support Of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Border Action Network, et al in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Border Scholars in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Eleven Law Professors as in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Former Officials of US Customs and Border Protection Agency in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Former Police Chiefs in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Legal Historians in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Mexican Jurists, Practitioners, and Scholars in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Professors James E Pfander, Carlos M Vázquez, and Anya Bernstein in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Restore the Fourth, Inc in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for Ten Law Professors in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation Of San Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU Foundation Of Texas, the ACLU Foundation Of Arizona, and the ACLU Of New Mexico, in Support of Peti (pdf download)
Brief for the American Immigration Council, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Police Accountability Project, and Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in Support Of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for the Government of the United Mexican States in Support of Petitioners (pdf download)
Brief for APA Watch in Support of Respondents (pdf download)
Brief for Professor Gregory C Sisk in Support of Neither Party (pdf download)
Brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Support of Respondent (pdf download)
Brief for the United States in Support of Respondents (pdf download)

PROCEEDING BELOW

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided April 24, 2015
pdf download