Hernandez V. Mes An Unarmed Mexican Citizen From A Border Patrol Agent

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

No. The ruling was 6-3 in favor of the United States. The ruling was 7-2 in favor of California.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor for Lopez on April 26th of 1995. In a disputable 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld

4.) The Supreme Court held that Mena’s detainment had not violated the 4th Amendment in any way. Officers with a search warrant for unlawful contraband had outright authority to detain all occupants of the premises during the search due to potential risk to the officers; having Mena and others restrained while police searched the house for weapons and gang members was necessary for officer safety. The Court additionally held that the officers’ inquiring Mena about her legal status during her detainment didn’t violate the 4th amendment because the officers didn’t need to have reasonable suspicion to do so.

The case, Hernandez v. Mesa, would raise questions whatever the ruling is. If Hernandez won, it would imply that constitutional protections would extend beyond the border. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Case Summary: Many states wanted to adopt policies that would limit the lives of illegal immigrants. Arizona being the primary state vying for laws to punish unauthorized immigrants. On April 23, 2010 the governor of Arizona signed a law designed to “ ... identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.” The United States seeking to stop the law before it was in effect, argued that the law was in conflict with the federal laws on illegal immigration. In the law signed by Arizona, given was four provisions, a condition in an agreement or law. The four provisions were (1) that being in Arizona without the proper legal documentation

S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4. Additionally, previous Supreme Court cases have served as reinforcement to the authority of the federal government, such as granting “undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens” Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982). another Supreme Court Case, Arizona v. United States, has further clarified the role of the federal government such as relegating issues such as the identification and deportation of undocumented immigrants is beyond the power of the states.

At the same time, this article was much more about what that case represented in the bigger picture than the case itself. Certainly because of the fact that most immigrants are also minorities, there is a significant risk that minorities will be stopped at a greater level than whites which leads to the aforementioned deeper problems with regard to immigration. Perhaps the best information that Johnson came up with is not a statistic, it is the coining of the phrase “crimmigration law” which is a combination of the existing criminal justice system and immigration law

Reasoning- The Supreme Court’s decision was split and provided various points of view on the issues just like the American population and some sections are still being challenged today. Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan to form the opinion of the court on this case. However, there are sections where Justices felt split on the opinion. Due to this reason, there is a detailed explanation of which

The United States sought an injunction to prevent the law’s implementation in its entirety by challenging provisions 2b, 3, 5c, and 6 of the bill. The district court granted preliminary injunction and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. After which, Arizona filed for appeal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 12, 2011.

In November 1992 This case went to the colorado supreme court, and the court agreed that this case was unconstitutional. Later on this case went on to the U.S

The fact is quite obvious that this case demonstrates lowest level of U.S Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney seems to be moving towards interpretive approach somewhere in middle

Jae Lee v. United States of America should have been an open and shut case back in 2016. Jae Lee, a noncitizen permanent resident, was convicted of being in possession of ecstasy with the intent to distribute. Because of his noncitizen status this particular offense qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, meaning he was subject to mandatory deportation. Lee’s court appointed attorney continually advised him that if he “took a plea bargain he would not be deported stating ‘the government cannot deport you’ if deportation was not in the plea agreement” (Jae Lee, 2017). Lee contested that had he known taking a plea would result in deportation he would instead have tried his luck at a trial.

Garcia versus the Hartford Police Department in the State of Connecticut was a fairly recent case involving alleged violations of the department’s code of conduct (Norman, 2013). Mr. Edwin Garcia is a past employee of the Hartford Police Department, however, while still employed and off duty he witnessed an incident (Norman, 2013). Another officer of the Hartford Police Department arrested the owner of a Hispanic bar and officer Garcia claims he used excessive force (Norman, 2013). After reporting this incident through his chain of command and agreeing to a gag order for promise it would be addressed, the story somehow got out to the press (Norman, 2013). This appeared to put pressure on the Chief of Police to formally make a statement

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.