This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns the shooting of 15‑year‑old Sergio Hernandez, who was standing on Mexican soil when a U.S. Border Patrol agent, located inside the United States, shot and killed him. The petitioners argue that the conduct occurred inside the United States and therefore the Fourth Amendment’s limits on deadly force and a Bivens claim should apply. The respondent contends that the Fourth Amendment does not reach conduct that occurs on foreign soil.
Background and question before the Court
According to Robert C. HILLIARD (Petitioners), according to Robert C. HILLIARD (Petitioners), sergio Hernandez, a 15‑year‑old Mexican citizen, was standing unarmed on Mexican soil when he was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent who was standing inside the United States.
According to Robert C. HILLIARD (Petitioners), according to Robert C. HILLIARD (Petitioners), the petitioners argue that because all of the officer’s conduct occurred inside the United States, the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on deadly force apply.
According to Mr. Ortega, the respondent argues that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a cross‑border shooting that occurs on Mexican soil.
According to Justice Kagan, the Court is asked to decide whether a Bivens action for Fourth Amendment violations is available when a U.S. officer shoots a foreign national on foreign soil from a position inside the United States.
What each side argues
Petitioners’ Position
According to Mr. Hilliard, all of the officer’s conduct occurred inside the United States, so Fourth Amendment constraints on deadly force apply.
According to Mr. Hilliard, the rule should consider the “close proximity” requirement, using curtilage cases as a substantive reasonableness evaluation.
Respondent’s Position
According to Mr. Ortega, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to a cross‑border shooting of a Mexican civilian on Mexico soil by a United States federal agent.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether all five factors listed by counsel are necessary for a Bivens claim and whether anything else is required.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer questioned how the Court’s wording might affect the drone‑strike case.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito probed whether the rule would apply if the victim were armed or had his hands up, and whether the rule would apply if the officer crossed into Mexico before shooting.
Justice Alito asked whether the rule would create a Bivens claim and Fourth Amendment violation when the U.S. agent commits the act on foreign soil.
Chief Justice Roberts asked about the qualified immunity point and later thanked counsel.
Justice Kennedy raised the importance of whether a Bivens action is appropriate and asked about the Fourth Amendment analysis.
- [1] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 8
- [3] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, pp. 9–10
- [4] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 11
- [5] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 37
- [6] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 54
- [7] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 18
- [8] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 20
- [9] 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdf, p. 50
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 6f969adc6f48e2fc5d6a-r1-a0133059bf610ecb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.