The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether a U.S. Border Patrol agent can be sued for shooting and killing a Mexican teenager who was playing with friends in the concrete culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Juarez, Mexico.
The shooting of an unarmed 15-year-old named Sergio Hernandez provoked outrage in Mexico in 2010 and set off a prolonged legal dispute over the reach of the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case to determine if the family of Mexican teenager who was killed by a Border Patrol agent firing into Mexico has a constitutional right to sue the agent in the United States.
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it would hear the case for this term, which began earlier this month.
U.S. Border Patrol agents had “an astonishing pattern” of shooting people who threw rocks at them under a vague use-of-force policy that led to the “highly predictable” death of a man along the U.S.-Mexico border in California, according to a law enforcement expert witness’ review of a fatal shooting.
In a report completed this week, a former Baltimore police commissioner and Justice Department official found a Border Patrol policy allowing agents to shoot their firearms based on the threat of a thrown object “highly suspect.”
“Virtually all thrown objects fail to meet the ‘Imminent Peril’ standard to justify use of deadly force, and in such circumstances, officers are trained to take evasive or defensive action, not escalate the encounter with gunfire,” Thomas Frazier wrote in his report,
Warner Chilcott will have to face claims it paid drugmakers to delay producing a generic version of its contraceptive Loestrin in multidistrict litigation after the First Circuit on Monday found that noncash settlements can be subject to antitrust scrutiny.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys say the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision returning the Lamictal reverse-payment case to trial court is an important landmark in their attempt to challenge drug brand-makers’ deals to delay market entry of generic competitors.
Steve Shadowen of Hilliard & Shadowen, who briefed the case as a friend of the court for the American Antitrust Institute and others, told PaRR that this is “a significant decision that rejects nearly every argument that defendants have made” since the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v Actavis in June 2013.