589 U.S. ___ (2020)
The case of Hernandez v. Mesa addresses critical questions regarding the reach of constitutional protections and the liability of U.S.
Does a damages remedy under the Bivens precedent extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting by a U.S. Border Patrol agent, and do the Fourth and Fifth Amendments apply extraterritorially to protect a non-U.S. citizen on foreign soil?
The Bivens decision provides a remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers; however, its application is limited to situations where no special factors counsel hesitation in extending such remedies, particularly in contexts implicating foreign relations and national security.
The Supreme Court held that the Bivens remedy does not extend to the claims arising from the cross-border shooting, as such an extension would impinge on foreign relations and involve complex regulatory questions inappropriate for judicial intervention.
Hernandez v. Mesa is a landmark case as it delineates the boundaries of constitutional protections in cross-border incidents, specifically the non-applicability of the Bivens remedy in new contexts with international implications. It serves as a precedent limiting the extension of constitutional protections to non-citizens on foreign soil, addressing judicial restraint in matters intersecting with foreign policy and national security.