extraterritoriality

Hernández v. Mesa

Issues

Should the availability of constitutional rights for aliens not on United States soil turn on practical factors beyond the formal geographic location of international borders and, if so, may an alien injured on foreign territory by an officer standing in the United States bring a Bivens claim? Additionally, may a federal officer’s conduct be shielded by qualified immunity based on facts unknown to the officer at the time of his conduct?

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Constitution allows parents of a Mexican citizen with no significant ties to the United States to sue a U.S. Border Patrol Agent who shot and killed their son on the Mexican side of the culvert separating the two countries while the agent was standing in the United States. The parents of the deceased teen argue that the Court should extend extraterritorial jurisdiction for practical reasons, that the border patrol agent should not be shielded by qualified immunity because he did not know the facts necessary to justify his force at the time he used it, and that the Court should allow them to bring a Bivens claim because it is the only available remedy. The border patrol agent counters that the Court should not extend jurisdiction to an area not under U.S. control, that he should be shielded by qualified immunity because a reasonable officer in his circumstances could have inferred the facts necessary to justify his use of force, and that the family is not entitled to bring a Bivens claim because the rights they claim were not clearly established at the time he acted. To the parents, defeat would foreclose any possibility to recover; to the Government, defeat would obstruct its foreign operations by implicating Fourth Amendment concerns in international security operations. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Does a formalist or functionalist analysis govern?

2. May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on facts—such as the victim’s legal status—unknown to the officer at the time of the incident?

3. May the claim in this case be asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971)?

On June 7, 2010, a group of Mexican teenagers were playing below a bridge leading to the United States border—in a channel that separated Juarez, Mexico and El Paso, Texas. See Hernández v. Mesa, 757 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2014); Brief for Petitioners, Jesus C. Hernández et al.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

Issues

Does a state statute violate the dormant Commerce Clause when its practical effect burdens out-of-state commerce?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether California’s Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by failing the extraterritoriality doctrine and the Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. balancing test. National Pork Producers Council (“NPPC”) argues that Proposition 12 violates the extraterritoriality doctrine by producing a “practical effect,” beyond its influence in California, that unduly burdens the integrated national pork market. NPPC also claims that Proposition 12 does not pass the Pike balancing test, as it imposes an undue burden on out-of-state commerce that is clearly excessive compared to its local benefits. Karen Ross, California’s Secretary of Food and Agriculture, counters that Proposition 12 regulates only the in-state pork market and that the opposing side’s expansive reading of the extraterritoriality doctrine may render it meaningless. Ross also argues that Proposition 12 survives the Pike balancing test. The outcome of this case has important implications for determining the scope of the dormant Commerce Clause as well as the extent of states’ police power.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a claim under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

In 2018, California voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 12, which prohibits businesses from knowingly selling various meat products within California, unless the confinement of animals in the production process complies with certain restrictions.  See Nat’l Pork Producers Council v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe

Issues

Under the Alien Tort Statute, can domestic corporations be held liable for aiding and abetting human rights abuses—specifically, child slavery—in a foreign country, when the aiding and abetting allegedly occurred on U.S. soil?

This case asks the Court to determine whether domestic corporations may be held liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations committed in foreign countries. Petitioners Nestlé and Cargill contracted for exclusive buyer-seller contracts with cocoa plantations on the Ivory Coast; Respondents John Doe et. al. were child slaves on those farms. John Doe alleges that Nestlé and Cargill aided and abetted the farmers from headquarters in the United States by providing monetary support while aware of the widespread use of child slavery on those farms, thus making them liable under the Alien Tort Statute. Nestlé and Cargill counter that the harm inflicted upon John Doe occurred exclusively on foreign soil, making the case impermissibly extraterritorial; furthermore, they argue recent Court cases determined that corporations were immune from liability under the Alien Tort Statute. The Court’s decision in this case will implicate political questions of foreign policy and foreign affairs, corporate incentives to invest in developing countries, and the United States’ support for human rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity; and (2) whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations.

In the Ivory Coast, cocoa plantations utilize child slaves to produce cheap cocoa. Doe I v.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Muna Ndulo for his guidance and insights into this case. The authors would like to thank Professor Muna Ndulo for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Issues

When served with a warrant under the Stored Communications Act, is an email service provider obligated to disclose communication information that they control but store outside of the United States?

This case asks the Court to decide whether an email service provider must comply with a warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act to disclose communication information if they exercise control over the information but physically store it outside the United States. This case implicates the presumption against application of U.S. law outside of U.S. borders, as well as the true focus of section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act. The Government argues that the focus of the statute is “disclosure” and the relevant conduct occurs in the U.S., and therefore the information must be disclosed. Microsoft argues that the focus is “privacy” and the relevant conduct occurs outside the U.S., and therefore outside the reach of the statute. This decision could impact international cooperation and comity due to potential conflict-of-laws issues, as well as other nations’ willingness to do business with U.S.-based carriers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.

Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is a United States corporation incorporated and headquartered in Washington state. Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 829 F.3d 197, 202. Microsoft operates a web-based email service, known as “Outlook.com,” that allows customers to send and receive correspondence with other email accounts.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Cornell Law School Professor James Grimmelmann for his insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to extraterritoriality