Actual Paper Link

Neil Gorsuch does not only hold large implications towards legal issues of immigration, including the case of Hernandez v. Meza which is scheduled for a rehearing once Gorsuch is officially appointed to court in April, but also holds power in issues involving womens reproductive rights, issues regarding housing, and transgender rights to certain bathrooms.

By replacing Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch will have to address his view on undocumented immigrants with regards to the First Amendment. He will compare with Antonin Scalia who once stated “the people in a political context,” and the case of Verdgo-Urquidez versus the Supreme Court(1990) implementing the Supreme Court decision that the term “the people” used by the U.S. Constitution refers to, “a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have developed suficient connections with this country to be part of that community.” To address his view on the issue may come sooner than expected with the case of Hernandez v. Meza, and his view will reflect future and current implications in the First Amendment interpretation.

The case of Hernandez v. Meza with the death of a Mexican boy, age 15 who held no substantial ties to the U.S., accounts of a family being entitled to a court hearing which previously dismissed the claims against all defendants. However, a panel of the Fifth Circuit judges reinstated the action against Mesa, stating the family was entitled to a trial, and that the killing of the boy amounted to a violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment which states that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property. By the court’s initial dismissal of the case, a conflicting view is regarded with the First Amendment rights, and who this legal statement entitles. This is because of the court’s initial hesitance to accepting the case hearing. The First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Additionally, the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property. For this instance, I would like to tie the connection between the First and Fifth Amendment for which they both address an individual and community connection with a multiple set of “person(s)” making up part of “the people,” and who these rights are meant for. This urges a response with regards to the problem of court cases involving undocumented immigrants in the U.S. with substantial ties, and freedom of speech in its necessity towards protecting inequality, corruption, racism, and discrimination.

The implication of Sergio Hernandez’s case would’ve impacted cases such as Anastacio Hernandez’s because both cases took place at the Mexican Border, and both held strong implications towards First Amendment rights to injustice done from racial discrimination. The difference between both cases, however, is that Anastacio Hernandez held substantial connections to the United States, and had been working in the U.S. for the past ten to fifteen years clearly showing economical, and susbstantial ties to the U.S. with regards to holding a family here which shows under Verdugo-Urquidez v. Supreme Court that he held substantial ties in the U.S to deserve First Amendment rights. Anastacio Hernandez plead with border patrol officials to “stop,” tasing him and held little resistance according to camara footage of the event. This shows an implication of the impact of restricting undocument immigrants rights to Freedom of Speech in the form of court cases looking the other way despite camara footage showing a clear racial discrimination implication while the ofendent doesn’t show any aggresive response apart from asking government officials to “stop.” The government also tried at one point to destroy this evidence which shows a violation of the First Amendment because the government tried to attack forms of expression with the intent to censor evidence to their benefit.

 *** Revisions Can Also be shown by the Revisions History Link in the Link OR in images below****