On November 12, the Supreme Court will consider the Trump administration’s decision to endDACA, an Obama-era initiative that offers legal protection to some immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.Previous decisionsfrom lower courts havetemporarily stoppedthe termination.
The end of DACA would upend the lives ofhundreds of thousands of peoplein the United States and would increase the number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States by nearly 700,000. This could have disastrous effects for DACA recipients, their families, and the country at large.
Young Boy in Mexico Killed by Border Patrol Agent
The Supreme Court will also hear a case on November 12 based onthe story of a 15-year-old boywho was shot in Mexico by a Border Patrol agent in the United States. The case isHernandez v Mesa.
Sergio Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, was playing with a friend in the canal between Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, Texas when Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa fired shots from the U.S. side. One bullet hit Hernandez, who was on the Mexican side of the border, killing him.
In order to recognize the family’s claim for damages, the Court must determine that the agentviolated the U.S. Constitutionby using excessive, deadly force against Hernandez. In making this determination, the Court will consider whether Agent Mesa is protected under “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine that protects federal officers from prosecution when they act within the scope of their employment.
The Prosecution of Immigrant Workers The immigrant worker case (Kansas v. Garcia) deals with three individuals accused of identity theft—a state crime—based on information they provided in federal employment documents. On October 16, the Supreme Court will address whether federal documents can support state criminal charges and whether federal immigration law prevents states from criminally charging noncitizens for identity theft.
This case highlightsa recurring patternin the prosecution of unauthorized immigrant workers: it is the workers, not the employers, being brought to court.
For example,in the Mississippi ICE raids this summer, a federal investigator testified that there was probable cause to believe that employers hired unauthorized workers “for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Yet none of the employers have been prosecuted.
Each of these cases will have far-reaching policy implications affecting immigrants throughout the United States. Hopefully, the Court will take this opportunity to increase the due process rights of individuals impacted by immigration enforcement in the United States.