WHAT HAPPENED: The Plaintiffs are the parents of a Mexican teenager who was shot by a U.S. border guard standing on U.S. soil. Plaintiffs are suing the Defendant (the guard) for Constitutional claims related to the shooting.
WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the United States, and the Defendant has taken every action imaginable to dismiss the case, including arguing that the jurisdiction is wrong for a 4th amendment claim, that the Bivens analysis is incorrect, and that Defendant is immune because there is no precedent saying you can’t shoot non-citizens across the border (which is factually right, but it’s not like shooting people is ever OK). Defendant has won at the lower level, so the case was dismissed.
WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS – There is a legal axiom that says “bad cases make bad law”. While it is easy to look at this case and say “you shouldn’t people” (which is most of the Plaintiff’s arguments), if you stretch the borders and the rules for this case, you end up complicating other issues where a strict application of border lines and qualified immunity make sense. The balance here is whether it is better for the Court to try to craft a rule that best resolves this question, or whether it is better to just make an unfair ruling in this case and keep the rules as is. Adding complication to this case is the fact that an amicus brief from Border Guards have advocated for liability in this case, as the dangerous environment surrounding the border needs more civil liability to keep things under control. Not to say that is going to sway things, but it adds context to where the situation is and why the Plaintiffs’ arguments make more sense the more you hear about facts of the case.
ROOT FOR HERNANDEZ IF: shooting people isn’t OK.
ROOT FOR MESA IF: shooting people is OK if you have a bunch of dumb rules in place to protect you.
PREDICTION: Mesa 6-2
The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court 