I did get the shot today for reasons that dont matter. I got it yesterday after the doctor suave my nose. He confirmed fear that test, that i have influenza. Im a highly knowledgeable person, i could not even know that war was a test to confirm i had a flu. And what strayed it was. We need more education here at home for ourselves, about the basics of where the science is right now. The game in the shot again. The flu shot. Even though the season is going to end. I cant use any of the other stuff. Because im too far into the infection. I just wanted to say, we need education at home and abroad. Got a barbara, thank you. That is a great idea. I really like it. Getting those short psas and animations out there, its something we have done with our members and activists around the world. Getting in front of millions of people is really tough. I did want to comment that this is one of the things that other partners on the ground due to tell communities there is going to be a vaccine day. They will get the community leaders, and who paid advertisements and billboards. Most everybody listens to the radio. They will do radio advertisements. Women will walk for hours and their sunday best for a vaccine day. Because i know the power these vaccines to say their kids lives. For viewers i want to learn more, you can go to one daughter. You can follow on twitter. At one campaign. Tom hart, thank you for this conversation. Hes, 16, 78. Hernandez. Mr. Chief justice merkels report. When this case was spurs argue to this for two years ago. Counsel responded, and council for the United States, were both asked for the petitioners would have if Sergio Hernandez was standing on u. S. Soil when he was shot and killed by respondents . Well said yes. It wasnt for the score today, is whether in action is nonetheless foreclose. Because in this case. Sergio ascending on a few phoenix of the Mexican Border at the time he was shot. For two reasons we believe that it isnt. First. The fortuitous of where a victim is standing does not affect trigger any of the special factors. Identified by responders or the United States. Most importantly. It is difficult to see how Foreign Relations could be a special factor for including a bevin suit here. If it wouldnt have precluded acclaim if he wasnt standing just a few feet away. Moreover the governments would dramatically undermine u. S. Foreign relations in diplomacy is, belied by the long history towards claims towards federal officers, including as in the avalon, this is where the victim was a foreigner harmed on foreign soil, the diplomatic sky did not fall. Nor this extra territoriality. Not only were responded stain on u. S. Soil when you pull the trigger. They could not have known in that instant, where the bullet would even lands. Let alone the nationality of anyone who may hit. Second, as import labor petitioners here. It is begins or nothing. Another respondents northerners United States seriously disputes, the west hall act preempt and neither has identified any alternative remedy for the petitioners year. As opposed to other parties in other cases. All of this goes to why this court was right, when it explained there are powerful reasons to retain divisions as a remedy for individual instances of law overreach, it goes to why sergio was sent on mexican soil when you shot and killed this, case provides the Law Enforcement overreach that they had in mind. Think abbas is a useful place to begin our analysis, and that case only did that court suggest that there is still Important Reasons to retain bivens him on forcing contacts. This court actually preserve and retain one of the bivens claims. A return to the District Court and sort of dismissive. The prison reviews before against the nbc. A reflects four of the reasons why irritating bivens and a lot sphere. Obasi whoever is difficult to contemplate other when individual officers are playing. His contacts of damage after the fact will be the only possible legal recourse. It is going to be difficult to a claim in advance. The deterrent effect. But his court has called the core purpose of bivens. The bitter individual officers, could be a loss in the absence of remedies and the law. As obasi, or alternative remedies. The historical traditional donor brief. Where federal courts and state courts, going all the way back to the founding. Routinely impose, for damages against federal officers, acting in ultra beers. Without suggesting there was separation of powers. Without suggesting there is anything wrong with the federal courts. Providing a cause of action in those cases. As opposed to having focus on immunity. Reasons in these cases actually hold the defended officer harmless. Not because there is no cause of action, but because he was acting in good faith. For under the modern standard, because he did not violate establish rights. How are his position would be aware. If the officer in this case, ive been a saint officer, and Everything Else was the same. With the victim have a claim in federal court . That the question isnt in federal court, i think would depend on diversity. I dont believe that the victim would be able to run a claim under 1983. Because as a Government Points out, the language of that statute limits a class of plaintiffs to u. S. Citizens and those under the jurisdiction of thereof. Justice alito, congress when enacted in 1983, as a judge noted in his below. I did not limit remedies otherwise available. It is about expanding remedies in that context of 1980 71. Normally three slaves. It has nothing to displace, any toward remedies that might be available towards state officers. Thats one of every a bit. There were no 1983, and a state officer had done exactly what the bureau of narcotics agents did. In bivens. Whether be in action against the state officer . There would be. It is worth in this context, reminded the court of the governments position in bivens. Their position was not at the federal court should not be recognizing these remedies in contacts. Rather the governments context in bivens. Was that new york state tort law would provide an adequate remedy. Not against a federal officer, but against had theyve been new york city officers. That new york trespass law. It would provide the remedy. To quote for the governments briefing. A federal remedy should only be recognized when it is necessary, and the argument ambivalence, was simply asked to whether a complimentary remedy was necessary. They vindicate the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights. Given the existence of new york traps past law. Given the governments argument that new york trespass law in that context was adequate to vindicate the interests. This was a common law model. I think we are all familiar with that the original understanding was that even federal officers would be principally responsible for judges in state court. There was no general federal question statue. Your reference to the governments position in bivens. That was almost 50 years ago. And the interim, theres been a fairly dramatic change and how we approach things, causes of action, under statutes. And under bivens. Its been 40 years since we last recognized a class action in bivens. We need to move up half a century. Explain to us why we should take your approach today, regardless of the prevailing legal regime was in 71. I think the point. If i may offer two points a response. I say all this by putting bivens in contacts. Bivens with a continuation of this tradition. The 1 00 forward is the task for the court today. I think it is worth stressing. Of the nine cases, this court has decided since carlson, which a Government Point out in page 11. At this gorgeous had the opportunity to recognize the bivens remedy, and it shows are not to do. So individual federal Law Enforcement officer was acting. None of the suits involved the kind of claim we had here. None of the suits involved the context in which the historical tradition which was at its richest. None of the suits or at least not all of the cases involved claims that would have had a commonlaw parallel so we recognize this court has been increasingly skeptical of judgment clauses in general and bivens in particular and our point is that skepticism has been reserved or at least focused on categories unlike this one. If bivens were a statute in effect we would apply the presumption against extraterritorial application and the other side argues that therefore even if it were a statute it wouldnt apply in a circumstance like this. Whats your answer to that . The first and most important is that bivens is not a statute and that court has not suggested that in looking at whether particular constitutional provision applies extraterritorial he we would use any of the typical presumptions that we apply to statute because it is a fundamentally Different Task from the perspective of looking at the extent to which the constitution applies versus what congress would have intended but even if this court nevertheless believe its appropriate to map on that presumption i think it helps us more than it hurts us because in coble this court said there will be cases in which the underlying conduct, the plaintiffs complaint involves activity that touches and concerns us osil with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality so i think this court could assume without deciding that extraterritoriality is a special factor for purposes of bivens and say this case is different because respondent was standing on us soil at the time he pulled the trigger. That is touching and concerning us territory. From my perspective the way he meant it. And the victim hernandez, this court has said i think that a noncitizen who enters a broad doesnt have any Fourth Amendment rights so it seems like a rather area discussion at the end of the day, there is no federal constitutional right. They can be asserted on a noncitizen who is injured abroad. Not at all justice whose home was searched by agents operating in conjunction with the Mexican Government. I think this court itself suggested in hernandez one two years ago that the Fourth Amendment question in the context of a cross border shooting is more complicated. And it is the fact that that question is unsettled. This is my question to. Im going to pick up on justice ginsburg. What that is the limiting principle . We have four National Injured abroad in the United States i can think of a lot of cases that that would encompass right . Not just cross border shootings, but things that occur transnational. Would you capture all of those . Not at all gorsuch. This cant be good for one shooting only. This court is aware theres been more than one shooting know, i think the larger point is our position focuses on the lawenforcement nature of cognitive issue here so many of the hypotheticals that you were thinking of that id be thinking of for context in which the Us Government person in the United States why would it be limited to Law Enforcement as opposed to other Law Enforcement functions that injured persons abroad . Its in the lawenforcement that theres the strongest appeal to the historical tradition where there is a Straight Line dating back to the founding where it was Law Enforcement where commonlaw remedies against federal officers were so important. There arent many examples, i could find none of combat operations where state courts were imposing tort remedies against federal officers. You draw a line there actively in this case and say that any actions involving military operations, diplomatic operations, any other operations of government, theres no bivens action there, only for Law Enforcement whatever that means. Obviously i wouldnt decide more than is necessary. But thats what i thought youd say. So where is, if youre not willing to draw that line, where is it and how is this court supposed to draw it . You could say this but i wouldnt say it. Where would you draw the line . I think based on this courts jurisprudence, the line could reasonably plausibly not reasonably plausibly, where would you have this court draw the line . There are decisions this court has handed down that are consistent with this whole tradition but its left open Law Enforcement conduct Justice Gorsuch and its not just this court, congress in 1974 amendment to the federal court tort act went out of its way to expand the liability of the United States for intentional torts committed by Law Enforcement officers. Its not just intentional torts, its rogue intentional torts, thats an important limiting principle. It is. Accepting the facts of this case, the use of force is on us land and its unreasonable the claim is that this young man was doing nothing but standing on the other side of the border. This might be sort of a more convincing answer i hope to Justice Gorsuch which is i believe it is relevant to the claim and the strength of our claim in this case that the respondent was according to the plausible allegations in the complaint violating not just the constitution but his own departmental regulations, that we have not just a Law Enforcement officer but one acting alter veras. I agree completely the border in this case is rather special. Its not just the line, it was the river. Administered by international commission. I have about six wonderful reasons that have persuaded only me. I thought we were taking this case on the assumption that the Fourth Amendment does apply. And the only issue in front of us is not that, but rather we soon to the Fourth Amendment applied, that it is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and the question is a bossy. Whether there is a vince action for a clear rogue violation of the Fourth Amendment that takes place in the way this does. Is that sufficient to use in a bossy term . Which im now lost. But the bossy term that this is some sort of extension of the Fourth Amendment, or it is some sort of special situation. That i thought was the issue. At some point, i feel ill try to answer that question, but id like to hear what you say about that. Justice breyer. I think abbasi all i want to hear is your argument. I dont want to repeat myself but on the assumptions i gave what is your argument that this is not an extension, that this is not special, that this is not an unusual thing. Recognized. The claims against individual Law Enforcement officers for Excessive Force or what is called a classic events claim. Then judge kavanaugh referring to it as the core of bidens. Justice breyer, i think theres at least an argument, that might not even be in your context. But even if it is in your context. The government have responded and identified three special factors. First they say its because the case involves Foreign Relations and National Security. We dont believe that follow simply from the fact that Sergio Hernandez was standing on the mexican side of the border as opposed to the american side of the border. The government also argues extra territoriality is a special factor. I hope i explained in response to Justice Kavanaughs question. I dont think that is implicated here because this case touches and concerns u. S. Territory with sufficient force to displace the presumption. And the Third Special factor invoked by responded and the government is congressional action. I think in that context, there is no example of congress specifically trying to preclude claims like here. And the only Time Congress is ever spoken to the tort liability, again Justice Gorsuch, this is where we get our test from, individual federal enforcement officers. Councillors expanded. Just a moment ago with the first of the things you mentioned, the International Relations. There has been there has been diplomatic correspondence between the Mexican Government and our government with respect to this incident. The Border Patrol has conducted an investigation and its reached the determination that the action of the agent was not contrary to policy and you would have the courts look into this by a, providing a bivens remedy that could come to the opposite conclusion so that in terms of our relations with mexico we have one agency saying this was not inconsistent with policy, we have the court saying it is and that is the type of thing that makes it at least a new context. You can say it doesnt make a difference but in terms of our relations with mexico got two Different Things and at least with respect to Foreign Relations i thought the country was supposed to speak with one voice. I agree the country is supposed to speak with one voice. Two points in response. If the government continues to believe there would be a bivens remedy, if Sergio Hernandez had been standing on american soil its not clear why the same concerns wouldnt be equally pr