Case: 17-1678 Hernández v. Mesa (2019-Nov-12)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)? If not, whether the Westfall Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as it preempts state-law tort suits for damages against rogue federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment for which there is no alternative legal remedy. Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-1678_21p3.pdf --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

QUESTION PRESENTED:

  1. Whether, when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)?
  2. If not, whether the Westfall Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as it preempts state-law tort suits for damages against rogue federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment for which there is no alternative legal remedy.


Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-1678_21p3.pdf

--- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Case: 17-1678 Hernández v. Mesa (2019-Nov-12)
Broadcast by