Justice Scali Hernandez V. Mesa - 1021 Words

Justice Scalia: Hernandez v. Mesa Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Following his graduation, Scalia attended Harvard Law School and received his L.L.B. After law school, Scalia spent six years from 1961-1967 at a private firm in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1967, Scalia began serving as a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, and taught there until 1971. Between 1971 and 1977, Scalia served the federal government in several capacities, such as: General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, and Assistant Attorney General for the†¦show more content†¦Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa arrived on the scene and detained one of Hernandez’s friends at the U.S. border. Hernandez fled to the Mexican side of the river and hid behind a pillar of a nearby bride. Mesa, while standing on the U.S side of the borde r, shot and killed Sergio Hernandez. Six months after Hernandez’s death, Mesa was sued in Texas’ federal district court by Hernandez’s parents. The suit claimed Mesa violated the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution by using deadly force. Mesa’s defense moved to dismiss and argued that Hernandez lacked constitutional protection because he was an illegal alien, standing in Mexico when he was killed. The district court determined through a formalist test that the Constitution’s deadly-force protection does not stretch across the border for non-citizens. Upon this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and held that the Fifth Amendment protections against deadly force applied but not the Fourth Amendment protections. Furthermore, the court of appeals also held that Mesa was not eligible for qualified immunity. According to ScotusBlog, the Supreme Court Justices are inclined to look at three major questions when reviewing this case. (1) Whether a formalist or functionalist analysis governs the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly