The Supreme Court ruled that the parents of a 15-year-old from Mexico who was playing chicken with his friends when he was shot and killed by a U.S. border patrol agent cannot sue the officer who killed him.
The court ruled that the parents of a Mexican boy shot and killed by a border patrol agent cannot sue the officer. It also heard arguments in a free-speech case involving immigration.Embed< iframe src="https://www.npr.org/player/embed/809358454/809470715" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">The U.S. Supreme Court heard two immigration-related cases on Tuesday, including one about a cross-border shooting involving a border patrol agent. Patrick Semansky/AP toggle caption Patrick Semansky/AP The U.S. Supreme Court heard two immigration-related cases on Tuesday, including one about a cross-border shooting involving a border patrol agent. Patrick Semansky/AP Immigration and border-patrol issues took center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases on Tuesday. A sharply divided court first ruled that the parents of a Mexican boy shot and killed by a U.S. border patrol agent cannot sue the officer who killed their son. Then, the court heard arguments in a free-speech case that will determine whether people who encourage illegal immigrants to remain in the country can be prosecuted. Border Patrol shooting In 2010, 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez and his friends were playing chicken at the U.S. Mexican border, running up and touching the border fence and then running away and hiding. Video of the scene shows Sergio peeking out from behind a railroad trestle on the Mexico side, as Agent Jesus Mesa Jr. points a gun, fires, and kills the boy. When the U.S. government declined to prosecute the agent or turn him over to Mexican authorities to face murder charges there, the boy's parents sued the agent for damages, contending that he violated the U.S. Constitution by depriving Hernandez of his life. Supreme Court Rules Border Patrol Agents Who Shoot Foreign Nationals Can't Be Sued The suit was brought under a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that allowed such damage claims against officers who act in bad faith. The panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that no reasonable officer would have done what Agent Mesa did under the circumstances, but the full appeals court said that it didn't matter whether Mesa had acted unreasonably because Hernandez was standing on the Mexican side of the border when he was shot, his parents couldn't sue. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court threw out the suit entirely and went much further, cutting the heart out of much of the court's 1971 decision. The vote was 5-to-4 with the court's conservative justices refusing to allow damage suits for cross-border shootings, and the court's liberal justices castigating the court's majority for giving a free pass to the"rogue actions" of law enforcement officers. Writing for the conservative court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that in essence the court has come to realize the folly of its earlier decision and has thus sought to limit its effect. "A federal court's authority to recognize a damages remedy must rest at bottom on a statute enacted by Congress," he wrote,"and no statute expressly creates [such] a remedy." Alito said there is"a world of difference between" allowing damage claims that have been allowed in the past and a case like this one, where, Alito maintained, there were foreign policy and national security issues at stake. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, would have gone further and outright overturned the court's 1971 decision and others that followed in its wake. In A First, Border Agent Indicted For Killing Mexican Teen Across Fence Writing for the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that"using lethal force against a person who poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others surely qualifies as an unreasonable" invasion of an individual's constitutional rights. It should not matter"one whit" that the boy was standing on the Mexican side of the embankment, not the U.S. side, she added. Mexico perceives cross-border shootings like this one to be a"persistent problem." Indeed, between 2005 and 2013 there were 42 cross-border shooting deaths, that number has increased in recent years. Mexico filed a brief in the case saying the U.S. should"hold the agents accountable" and pointing out that the U.S."would expect no less if ... a Mexican government agent, standing in Mexico and shooting across the border, had killed an American child standing on U.S. soil." Robert Hilliard, who represents the Hernandez family, was more than disappointed by the ruling, telling NPR that"the path to justice apparently does not travel as far as a bullet." After the announcement of the ruling in the Hernandez case, the Supreme Court moved on to hearing arguments in another immigration case, but this one involved the First Amendment right of free speech. The First Amendment and immigration advocacy At issue was a statute that makes it a crime to encourage or advise illegal immigrants to stay in the country. Critics say the law could ensnare grandparents, ministers, lawyers and human rights activists. The case involves the conviction of Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, a California woman who ran an immigration consulting business that mainly served Filipino home health care workers. Between 2001 and 2008, she collected more than $3 million from clients applying for an adjustment of their immigration status. The adjustment program, however, had ended in 2001, so the clients she applied for were not actually eligible for the adjustment. Sineneng-Smith was subsequently convicted of mail fraud, tax violations and also of illegally encouraging or inducing an alien to remain in the U.S. It was this last conviction — for encouraging undocumented people to stay in the U.S. — that was before the Supreme Court Tuesday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out that conviction, finding it to be a violation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Both liberal and conservative advocacy groups have urged the Supreme Court to follow suit, contending that the statute is so broad that it encompasses lots of perfectly legal expression. Off The Record: Trump Administration Criticized For How It Keeps Documents Assistant Solicitor General Eric Feigin, representing the Trump administration, took incoming fire from an ideologically diverse set of justices. What about"a grandmother whose granddaughter is in the United States illegally," and"tells [her] granddaughter ... I hope you will stay," asked Chief Justice John Roberts. Would that grandmother be at risk of federal prosecution? "What about a charity," followed up Justice Brett Kavanaugh. If it's a charity that"provides food to someone who's in the country unlawfully ... is it covered under the statute?" Feigin acknowledged that it was possible conduct of that sort"might violate the statute" but added that there was no instance of it actually being used in that way. Justice Sonia Sotomayor followed up:"It has been used" to create"a watch list at the border" for"charitable organizations, people who were giving legal advice at the border ... because they potentially violated this encouragement provision." And, noted Sotomayor, there was a prosecution in the case of a woman who advised her housekeeper that"if you return to your home country, you may not get back." Justice Gorsuch noted that being in the country illegally is not itself a crime, so why is encouraging someone to stay a crime? Between President Trump's Border Wall And The Rio Grande Lies A 'No Man's Land' Arguing on behalf of Sineneng-Smith, the defendant in the case, lawyer Mark Fleming faced a grilling from Justice Alito who wanted to know if there is any kind of encouraging speech that could be criminalized. For instance, what if a bullied and depressed teenager calls up a friend to say he is going to kill himself, and the friend says,"I'm tired of hearing this from you ... you're a coward, why don't you just do it ... pull the trigger." Asked Alito,"Is that speech protected by the First Amendment?" No, replied Fleming, because that is inciting imminent harm, which the Supreme Court has said is not protected. Addressing the government's argument that the statute is not really used to prosecute most speech, Fleming told the justices that while the statute has historically not been used much, the Trump administration has"recently made it a focus of enforcement." Building on Sotomayor's point about government watch lists of charitable organizations and lawyers working at the border, Fleming noted that should the court uphold the law, it could soon be used against"U.S. citizens for their prayer, for their speech, and for their legal advice." A decision in the case is expected by summer. Facebook Read more: NPR
Ha.Ha.Ha thou shall not kill. A bunch of people here reading the misleading highlights of this article. I bet NPR is proud of feeding BS propaganda that an officer can shoot people for no reason. You guys should be held at a higher standard. The kid threw rocks towards the Agent and a suspect and he got shot.
I know our mexican justice system is pretty corrupt and im in no way trying to compare it to the US´s. But this is bullshit and anyone with a brain knows this. So much for JUSTICE, especially coming from a country that claims to be the leader of the free world.. All Bullshit! There are people who will defend this man and this decision. If you can even call them people.
Truly disgusting. MAGA How does this work with laws set forth by the Geneva Convention and laws against humanity? Is this not an act of terrorism against another country? HI_UnitedStates UNHCRUSA UN UNHumanRights newhumanitarian equalityconcern HRC hrw humanrights1st Murder JohnRoberts_CJ really sad to see the ruling in this case. Would it be OK for Mexican border guards to shoot American citizens on the Mexican side and they couldn’t be sued in Mexican courts?
Ok so North Korea or Russia Drops a war head on us by this logic we have no recourse? Without the Supreme Court to protect us, we become a lawless nation. People count, including those from other countries. Disturbing.
U.S. Supreme Court turns away religious bias claim against WalgreensThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked not to work on Saturdays for religious reasons as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The justices declined to review a lower court ruling
Not only despicable that the CBP agent shot and killed a 15 yo but the kid was in Mexico. Shooting someone across the border could start a war. Lucky he wasn’t a kid of the cartel. Deaths of Americans This is a complete miscarriage of justice and unacceptable. The Supreme Court has basically given border guards a licence to murder unarmed individuals, be they Mexican or not, and the security of knowing they'll never be held accountable. AmericanGestapo TrumpsAmerica
SS Gestapo agents were not accountable for killing Jewish people outside of Germany. Shameful. ... this is fucked So sad. Borders shouldn’t mean death or cages for children. Excellent Just unbelievable. We truly expect this body to be above reproach and now trump has sullied even the scotus. Simple, it's a murder. If the case was a Mexican authority shooting a US child in US soil, what kind of justice do they think deserve?
Does this mean a Canadian or Mexican officer can shoot a US kid across the border now with no repercussions?
Supreme Court takes up religious liberty dispute on foster care and same-sex marriageThe Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal by a Catholic foster agency that argues it's in danger of losing its government contract because it refuses to recruit or certify same sex couples as potential foster parents. Being a foster parent isn't a right. Eyes Of The Insane At least some one is fighting the leftist liberal insanity
Supreme Court Lifts US Agents' Restrictions on Murder But the officer should be held accountable and the gov should compensate the death Shooting children while they playing is right So agent who was using children for target practice exonerated by GOPSCOTUS ⁉️‼️😳 Boarder agent kills a child on the other side of the boarder offering no threat to his or anyone else's life, and we do no charge him and the parents can not be compensated . Not Trumph but America.
The great experiment in democracy is over. Thanks GOP RIPAmerica Flaunting the authorities is not a defense for anything. So has a Mexican border agent ever shot an American citizen standing on the US side?
Ginni Thomas: Supreme Court justice's wife leading right-wing effort to purge officials 'disloyal' to TrumpA group of pro-Trump activists led by Ginni Thomas has reportedly compiled lists of “disloyal” government officials it wants sacked.It is alleged that Ms Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is part of a network of conservative activists called Groundswell, which has close ties Voteblue2020 VoteBlueToSaveDemocracy just another follower when what we really need is leaders This is normal...
Seems like a fair and balanced response. Also, if Mexican Border Agents kill Americans they have zero consequences too. 🤦🏼♂️ 🙄 I'm rooting for coronavirus for that specific border agent. ActofWar stopkillingchildren TrumpsConcentrationCamps TrumpsKidnappingChildren Direct result of Trump's election, thanks to Bernie bros who didn't vote,or voted for Trump, those who gave protest vote to Jill Stein, and those who stayed home cause Dems didn't have their 'perfect' candidate
🙄😱 When will we Democrat’s wake up to the importance of the Court. Not one question in last nights debate This is wrong. But what did you expect from the USSupremeCourt control by Republican party hacks? A court has two sexual criminals and a Christian fascist and has a Chief who is a corporate owned punk. They are bowing to trump and Authoritarian rule of the Oligarchs.
The cruelty is the point. A Border Patrol agent called migrants 'subhuman.' Then he purposefully hit one with his truck. EXECUTING children is now viewed as target practice for law enforcement by the Republican RACIST FOURTH REICH SUPREME COURT. FDRLST YaleFedSoc So gringos can kill Mexicans on the other side without repercussion, I wonder if it works the other way around.
Supreme Court To Hear Philly Dispute Over Same-Sex Foster ParentsThe justices will review a ruling that upheld the city’s decision to stop placing children with a Catholic agency. WOW...IN PA? I know there is a huge problem with Catholic and Christian bigotry towards gay couples, American muslims and Jehovah witnesses adopting children in American red voting states..Meanwhile they are against a woman's decision to choose but won't change adoption rules🤔 Better to give the children to people who wants to be parents (whether they are single / same sex couple). As long as they are qualified to raise a child. Than putting those children in an organization. It won’t give them the feeling of being ‘home’ or having ‘parents’ This republican Court, not conservative, has ruled the wrong way on virtually every thing it could. know that because this is a Catholic issue, all bets are off
rule of thumb ; fu==ka with cop as==a gets hurt ; usa , mexico , cuba , kenya , germany , india , china , outer mongolia ...... As an American citizen the patrol agent will likely be charged. What the headline readers and gas-lighters don’t get is, a non citizen in a boarding country cannot sue into this nation. Rightfully so, that would be absurdly powerful. Unfortunate regarding the death.
Stacked court!!! WE NEED TERM LIMITS AND DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICANS OR VISA VERSA... IN SUPREME COURT...WE NEED EDUCATED MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR LAWS, WHO GOES BY OUR CONSTITUTION... COMPASSIONATE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE WITH WISDOM...NOT POLITICAL IDEALS This country has turned into a militaristic fascist dictatorship that's fine with killing children under das fuhrer Drumph.
5-4 for trump. Don't bother This is trump's government now and he's making it clear to police and military they can do as they please and to criminals that support him, they too, are carefree. Supreme garbage court. Corrupt as Trump. Very sad, I guess Usa did nothing wrong killing thousand of japanese with 2 atomic bombs almost 80 years ago; the japanese where in Japan and the bombs were launched from the sky.
Seriously fucked up. Supreme court is at an all time low in American history.
Supreme Court denies Mexican family's damages claim for cross-border shootingThe case had been watched closely because of President Donald Trump&39;s efforts to build a border wall and to reduce both legal and illegal immigration.
Doesn't seem just As it should be... People need to come legally Surprising with a conservative majority that doesn't see Mexican people as people SupremeCourt So much for respecting precedent huh It is brutal but it sort of makes sense. They want to shoot to people crossing the border to stop them from crossing. I guess? But this kid was just playing and he was 15. Sad.
💔That is not right. Not at all. This is trump's supreme court. Human rights be damned. Shame! This is injustice at its core.
Supreme Court Rules Border Patrol Agents Who Shoot Foreign Nationals Can't Be SuedThe U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that families of foreign nationals shot by federal agents on foreign territory have no constitutional right to sue for damages in U.S. courts. Shameful This country is over Horrifying
Good. Why should American service men be liable from lawsuits from illegals? This is totally f**ked up Disgusting. The Supreme Court said border patrol agents can shoot immigrants with no repercussions