Keywords
border patrol, national security, foreign relations, state purview, insanity defense, Fourth Amendment, reasonable suspicion
Abstract
In a 5-4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court once again denied a Bivens action. This case involved a tragic crossborder shooting by a border patrol agent standing on United States soil, who shot and killed a young boy standing on Mexican soil. Petitioners, the boy’s parents, sought relief under Biven2, arguing the agent’s action violated the Constitution. However, the Court determined the cross-border shooting was a new Bivens context, which required an analysis of whether any special factors “counseled hesitation” for the cause of action to be extended. The Court concluded Bivens was inappropriate because several factors “counseled hesitation”—namely, separation of powers concerns such as national security and foreign relations.
Recommended Citation
Peyton Hildebrand,
Recent Developments,
73 Ark. L. Rev.
451
(2020).
Available at:
https://scholarworks.uark.edu/alr/vol73/iss2/7
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, National Security Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons