DRAWING THE LINE IN THE SAND | Murder of a Mexican Boy at SCOTUS Today | For Gorsuch, The BIGGER The BETTER
February 21, 2017
TODAY AT SCOTUS
|Justices hear arguments today in the case of a Mexican teenage boy who was shot and killed by a U.S. border agent nearly seven years ago. The boy was playing chicken with his buddies, challenging each other to see who would run the closest to the American border and touch the fence. At one point, one of the boys was grabbed at the fence by an agent while the other kids ran off to hide. But when 15-year-old Sergio Hernández peaked out from where he was hiding, the agent shot him from 60 feet away on the U.S. side of the fence. He fired three times — the last shot hitting the boy in the head. NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports on the story behind today’s SCOTUS case.
WHY IT MATTERS
|Today marks the first case the Supreme Court will hear under the new administration which has already faced a series of legal challenges regarding the constitutional rights of non-citizens. Also, keep in mind that this case comes before a court of eight. CNN’s Ariane de Vogue reports that among issues presented today is whether the border agent is entitled to qualified immunity for the shooting, and also whether the Fourth Amendment applies to the slain boy.
AT THE HEART OF IT ALL
|David Savage with the Los Angeles Times notes that today’s case asks a question that is also at the heart of the legal dispute over PRESIDENT TRUMP’S travel ban (which got quite the facelift it seems): Does the Constitution protect foreign citizens who stand at the nation’s borders?
IT'S YOU, IT'S YOU, IT'S ALWAYS YOU
|Savage with LAT also adds that per usual, JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY will likely hold the key vote in today’s case. “In the past, [Kennedy] has said the reach of the Constitution should turn on practical concerns, including whether U.S. officials are in control. If so, he could join with the court’s liberals to say the Constitution constrains U.S. agents operating on a border, thereby clearing the family’s lawsuit to proceed. Such a decision would surely be cited by lawyers and judges in the litigation over the travel ban.”
HIDEAWAY
|“Democrats preparing for hearings next month on PRESIDENT TRUMP’S first nominee to the highest court say it is not a matter of getting the answers they want from JUDGE GORSUCH; it is a matter of getting any pertinent answers at all.” Carl Hulse with The New York Times writes that like previous Supreme Court nominees, Neil Gorsuch isn’t giving anything away, keeping his views hidden as he strides through the confirmation process.
WHEN THE MESSER, BECOMES THE MESS-EE
|It’s no secret that DONALD TRUMP has made some questionable comments regarding the freedom of the press, pledging during the campaign to curtail free press and “open up” libel laws. But it looks like JUDGE GORSUCH might not be the knight in shining armor Trump hopes him to be in the fight against the media. Adam Liptak with The New York Times notes that Gorsuch’s past decisions in libel cases “show no inclination to cut back on protections for the press.”
LOVE NOT LOST
|Before Richard and Mildred Loving, there was Andrew Kinney and Mahala Miller whose love story took place 67 years before the Lovings prevailed at the Supreme Court in their fight to overturn their state’s ban on interracial marriages. Both couples went to the Virginia Supreme Court because their mixed-race marriage was called into question in Virginia, but the outcome the Lovings obtained at the U.S. Supreme Court was not a possibility in the time of the Kinneys.
THE BIGGER THE BETTER
|Zephyr Teachout in The Washington Post notes that NEIL GORSUCH loves big business, big donors and big bosses. She opines, that with Gorsuch on the bench, the economy will “look even more monopolized and unfair than the one we have today.” She continues, “Gorsuch’s views on antitrust and campaign finance go hand in hand. They reveal a judge who will further open the way for a few wealthy people to rob the American people of their basic freedoms and properties, and to subvert our democracy once and for all.”
OTHER NEWS
Divided U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Lethal Injection Challenge
Bloomberg“A divided U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the execution of an Alabama man who tried to prevent the state from using a sedative linked to botched executions.”