Cover image of Hernandez v. Mesa

Hernandez v. Mesa Podcasts

Read more

11 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Hernandez v. Mesa. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Hernandez v. Mesa, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

11 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Hernandez v. Mesa. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Hernandez v. Mesa, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

Episode artwork

Hernandez v. Mesa

Play
Read more

On this week’s episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about a case involving a Border Patrol agent who shot a teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border. The hosts are joined by Steven Vladeck, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of the victim’s family.

Jun 09 2020 · 56mins
Episode artwork

Hernandez v. Mesa Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
The case of Hernandez v. Mesa arises from a 2010 confrontation on the U.S.-Mexican border in which U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez, a teenage Mexican national. Although the FBI apparently cleared Mesa of wrongdoing, and Hernandez was not standing on American soil at the time he was shot, the Hernandez family filed suit against Mesa and the federal government based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which held that a federal agent can be found liable in damages under the Fourth Amendment for committing an unconstitutional search and seizure.
The central issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law.
To discuss the case, we have Peter Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Mar 12 2020 · 38mins
Episode artwork

Hernandez v. Mesa Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
The case of Hernandez v. Mesa arises from a 2010 confrontation on the U.S.-Mexican border in which U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez, a teenage Mexican national. Although the FBI apparently cleared Mesa of wrongdoing, and Hernandez was not standing on American soil at the time he was shot, the Hernandez family filed suit against Mesa and the federal government based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which held that a federal agent can be found liable in damages under the Fourth Amendment for committing an unconstitutional search and seizure.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law.
By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was affirmed. Per Justice Alito's opinion for the Court: "We are asked in this case to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), and create a damages remedy for a cross-border shooting. As we have made clear in many prior cases, however, the Constitution’s separation of powers requires us to exercise caution before extending Bivens to a new 'context,' and a claim based on a cross-border shooting arises in a context that is markedly new. Unlike any previously recognized Bivens claim, a cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications.... Because of the distinctive characteristics of cross-border shooting claims, we refuse to extend Bivens into this new field.... In sum, this case features multiple factors that counsel hesitation about extending Bivens, but they can all be condensed to one concern––respect for the separation of powers." Justice Alito's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
To discuss the case, we have Peter Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Mar 12 2020 · 22mins
Episode artwork

Courthouse Steps Decision: Hernandez v. Mesa

Play
Read more
In the case of Hernandez v. Mesa, by a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was affirmed. Per Justice Alito's opinion for the Court: "We are asked in this case to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), and create a damages remedy for a cross-border shooting. As we have made clear in many prior cases, however, the Constitution’s separation of powers requires us to exercise caution before extending Bivens to a new 'context,' and a claim based on a cross-border shooting arises in a context that is markedly new. Unlike any previously recognized Bivens claim, a cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications. In addition, Congress has been notably hesitant to create claims based on allegedly tortious conduct abroad. Because of the distinctive characteristics of cross-border shooting claims, we refuse to extend Bivens into this new field.... In sum, this case features multiple factors that counsel hesitation about extending Bivens, but they can all be condensed to one concern––respect for the separation of powers." Justice Alito's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Peter Thomson joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Peter M. Thomson, Member, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C.
Mar 11 2020 · 25mins
Episode artwork

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument Teleforum: Hernandez v. Mesa

Play
Read more
The case of Hernandez v. Mesa arises from a 2010 confrontation on the U.S.-Mexican border in which U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez, a teenage Mexican national. Although the FBI apparently cleared Mesa of wrongdoing, and Hernandez was not standing on American soil at the time he was shot, the Hernandez family filed suit against Mesa and the federal government based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which held that a federal agent can be found liable in damages under the Fourth Amendment for committing an unconstitutional search and seizure.

The central issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law. Peter Thomson joined us to discuss the oral argument and offered predictions on the outcome of the case as well as its greater implications.

Featuring:
-- Peter M. Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC
Jan 03 2020 · 40mins
Episode artwork

SCOTUS Hernandez v. Mesa, Case No. 17-1678

Play
Read more
Civil Rights: When a Boarder Patrol Agent shoots and kills an unarmed minor across the border, does Bivens provide a remedy? - Argued: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:10:26 EDT
Nov 15 2019 ·
Episode artwork

Hernandez v. Mesa

Play
Read more
A case in which the Court held that the family of a Mexican teenager who was killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting cannot sue the agent for damages under the U.S. Constitution.
Nov 12 2019 · 1hr 1min
Episode artwork

Courthouse Steps: Hernandez v. Mesa Decided

Play
Read more
On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Hernandez v. Mesa to the Fifth Circuit. The case involved a cross-border shooting and a Bivens claim. -- In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. When Jesus Mesa, Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol Agent arrived, he detained one of the youths on the border, and shot and killed Hernandez, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte Bridge on the Mexican side of the border. Hernandez’s parents sued Agent Mesa under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment for the use of unlawful and disproportionate force. Agent Mesa argued that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not apply because Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen. -- The District Court found for Agent Mesa, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment protections against deadly force applied but the Fourth Amendment did not, and that Agent Mesa should not receive qualified immunity. -- Steve Giaier of the House Committee on Homeland Security joined us to discuss the Court’s decision to vacate and remand and what it means for the case going forward. -- Featuring: Steven Giaier, Senior Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security.
Jun 29 2017 · 26mins
Episode artwork

Three Questions about Hernandez v. Mesa

Play
Read more

This week's case, Hernandez v. Mesa, untangles the procedure hurdles that result when a U.S. government official standing on U.S. soil shoots and kills a Mexican citizen standing on Mexican soil.  Brett and Nazim discuss three big procedural hurdles, and why twenty feet in either direction make this case a lot easier to resolve.  The law starts at (09:30), but please start at (06:26) if you live in the Bay Area and don't want to hear about cool countries you can party in at age 19.

Mar 12 2017 · 42mins
Episode artwork

Courthouse Steps: Hernandez v. Mesa

Play
Read more
On February 21, the Supreme Court heard argument in Hernandez v. Mesa. In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. When Jesus Mesa, Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol Agent arrived, he detained one of the youths on the border, and shot and killed Hernandez, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte Bridge on the Mexican side of the border. Hernandez’s parents sued Agent Mesa under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment for the use of unlawful and disproportionate force. Agent Mesa argued that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not apply because Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen. -- The District Court found for Agent Mesa, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment protections against deadly force applied but the Fourth Amendment did not, and that Agent Mesa should not receive qualified immunity. The main questions for the Supreme Court to answer are: Does the Fourth Amendment apply? Should qualified immunity apply to the border patrol agent? And can Agent Mesa make a Bivens claim? -- Steve Giaier of the House Committee on Homeland Security attended oral argument and shared his perceptions. -- Featuring: Steven Giaier, Senior Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security
Mar 08 2017 · 26mins
Loading