Case Name: Jesus C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; Maria Guadalupe Guereca Bentacour, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Jesus MESA, Jr., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-20
Citations: 885 F.3d 811
Docket Number: No. 12-50217
Parties: Jesus C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; Maria Guadalupe Guereca Bentacour, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
Jesus MESA, Jr., Defendant-Appellee
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 885
Pages: 811–832

Head Matter:
Jesus C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; Maria Guadalupe Guereca Bentacour, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
Jesus MESA, Jr., Defendant-Appellee
No. 12-50217
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 20, 2018
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq., Hilliard & Shadowen, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Rudy O. Gonzales, Jr., Robert C. Hilliard, Esq., Marion M. Reilly, Hilliard Martinez Gonzales, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Randolph Joseph Ortega, Esq., Ellis & Ortega, El Paso, TX, Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., Esq., Law Office of Louis E. Lopez, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellee JESUS MESA, JR.
Esha Bhandari, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of New York, New York, NY, Lee P. Gelernt, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, New York, NY, Alexandra Freedman Smith, American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, Cecillia D. Wang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NEW MEXICO, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES.
Hashim M. Mooppan, Esq., Katherine Twomey Allen, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Nancy Winkelman, Attorney, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, L.L.P., Philadelphia, PA, for Amici Curiae BORDER NETWORK FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, PASO DEL NORTE CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT, SOUTHERN BORDER COMMUNITIES COALITION.
Donald Francis Donovan, Esq., Senior Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton, L.L.P., New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES.
Guinevere Elizabeth Moore, Teague, TX, Pro Se.
Guinevere Elizabeth Moore, Teague, TX, for Amicus Curiae ROBERT T. MOORE.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge, joined by STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
This appeal returned to the court en banc following remand from the United States Supreme Court. Prompted by the High Court, we have carefully considered a question antecedent to the merits of the Hernandez family's claims against United States Customs & Border Patrol Agent Mesa: whether federal courts have the authority to craft an implied damages action for alleged constitutional violations in this case. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) [hereinafter Bivens ]. We hold that this is not a garden variety excessive force case against a federal law enforcement officer. The transnational aspect of the facts presents a "new context" under Bivens , and numerous "special factors" counsel against federal courts' interference with the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government.
BACKGROUND
Because the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on the pleadings, the alleged facts underlying this tragic event are taken as true. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ; Toy v. Holder , 714 F.3d 881, 883 (5th Cir. 2013). Sergio Hernandez was a 15-year-old Mexican citizen without family in, or other ties to, the United States. On June 7, 2010, while at play, he had taken a position on the Mexican side of a culvert that marks the boundary between Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. The FBI reported that Agent Mesa was engaged in his law enforcement duties when a group of young men began throwing rocks at him from the Mexican side of the border. From United States soil, the agent fired several shots toward the assailants. Hernandez was fatally wounded.
Hernandez's parents alleged numerous claims in a federal lawsuit against Agent Mesa, other Border Patrol officials, several federal agencies, and the United States government. The federal district court dismissed all claims, but was reversed in part by a divided panel of this court. Hernandez v. United States , 757 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir. 2014). The panel decision allowed only a Bivens claim, predicated on Fifth Amendment substantive due process, to proceed against Agent Mesa alone. Id. at 277. This court elected to rehear the appeal en banc. Without ruling on the cognizability of a Bivens claim in the first instance, we concluded unanimously that the plaintiffs' claim under the Fourth Amendment failed on the merits and that Agent Mesa was shielded by qualified immunity from any claim under the Fifth Amendment. We rejected the plaintiffs' remaining claims. See Hernandez v. Mesa , 785 F.3d 117, 119 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
The Supreme Court granted certioriari and heard this case in conjunction with Ziglar v. Abbasi , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 198 L.Ed.2d 290 (2017). In Abbasi , the Court reversed the Second Circuit and refused to imply a Bivens claim against policymaking officials involved in terror suspect detentions following the 9/11 attacks. The Court, however, remanded for reconsideration by the appeals court whether a Bivens claim might still be maintained against a prison warden.
The Court's decision in this case tagged onto Abbasi by rejecting this court's approach and ordering a remand for us to consider the propriety of allowing Bivens claims to proceed on behalf of the Hernandez family in light of Abbasi's analysis.
DISCUSSION
The plaintiffs assert that Agent Mesa used deadly force without justification against Sergio Hernandez, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, where the fatal shot was fired across the international border. No federal statute authorizes a damages action by a foreign citizen injured on foreign soil by a federal law enforcement officer under these circumstances. Thus, plaintiffs' recovery of damages is possible only if the federal courts approve a Bivens implied cause of action. Abbasi instructs us to determine initially whether these circumstances present a "new context" for Bivens purposes, and if so, whether "special factors" counsel against implying a damages claim against an individual federal officer. To make these determinations, we review Abbasi 's pertinent discussion about " Bivens and the ensuing cases in [the Supreme Court] defining the reach and the limits of that precedent." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1854.
In Abbasi , the Court begins by explaining that when Congress passed what is now 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 1871, it enacted no comparable law authorizing damage suits in federal court to remedy constitutional violations by federal government agents. In 1971, the Bivens decision broke new ground by authorizing such a suit for Fourth Amendment violations by federal law enforcement officers who handcuffed and arrested an individual in his own home without probable cause. Within a decade, the Court followed up by allowing a Bivens action for employment discrimination, violating equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, against a Congressman. The Court soon after approved a Bivens claim for constitutionally inadequate inmate medical care, violating the Eighth Amendment, against federal jailers. According to the Court in Abbasi , these three cases coincided with the "ancien regime " in which "the Court followed a different approach to recognizing implied causes of action than it follows now." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1855.
The "ancien regime " was toppled step by step as the Court, starting in the late 1970s, retreated from judicially implied causes of action and cautioned that where Congress "intends private litigants to have a cause of action," the "far better course" is for Congress to confer that remedy explicitly. Cannon v. Univ. of Chi. , 441 U.S. 677, 717, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1968, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Abbasi acknowledges that the Constitution lacks as firm a basis as congressional enactments for implying causes of action; but the "central" concern in each instance arises from separation-of-powers principles.
Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1857. Consequently, the current approach renders implied Bivens claims a "disfavored" remedy. Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 675, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ). The Court then lists the many subsequent cases that declined to extend Bivens under varying circumstances and proffered constitutional violations. Id.
Abbasi goes on to reiterate with an exacting description the two-part analysis for implying Bivens claims. We turn to the two inquiries by comparing Abbasi 's separation-of-powers considerations and its facts to the present case.
A. New Context
The plaintiffs assert that because the allegedly unprovoked shooting of a civilian by a federal police officer is a prototypical excessive force claim, their case presents no "new context" under Bivens . This court, including our colleagues in dissent, disagrees. The fact that Bivens derived from an unconstitutional search and seizure claim is not determinative. The detainees in Abbasi asserted claims for, inter alia , strip searches under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but the Supreme Court found a "new context" despite similarities between "the right and the mechanism of injury" involved in previous successful Bivens claims. Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1859. As Abbasi points out, the Malesko case rejected a "new" Bivens claim under the Eighth Amendment, whereas an Eighth Amendment Bivens claim was held cognizable in Carlson ; and Chappell rejected a Bivens employment discrimination claim in the military, although such a claim was allowed to proceed in Davis v. Passman . The proper inquiry is whether "the case is different in a meaningful way" from prior Bivens cases. Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1859.
Among the non-exclusive examples of such "meaningful" differences, the Court points to the constitutional right at issue, the extent of judicial guidance as to how an officer should respond, and the risk of the judiciary's disruptive intrusion into the functioning of the federal government's co-equal branches. Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1860-61. The Court found it an easy conclusion that there were meaningful differences between prior Bivens claims and claims alleged in Abbasi for unconstitutional "confinement conditions imposed on illegal aliens pursuant to a high-level executive policy created in the wake of a major terrorist attack on American soil." Id. at 1860. Even more significant, the Court decided that claims against the prison warden for "compelling" allegations of detainee abuse and prison regulation violations also arose in a "new context" under Bivens . Id. at 1864. Despite close parallels between claims alleged against the warden and Carlson , the Court explained that "even a modest extension [of Bivens ] is still an extension," id. , and the Court remanded for additional consideration of the "special factors."
Pursuant to Abbasi , the cross-border shooting at issue here must present a "new context" for a Bivens claim. Because Hernandez was a Mexican citizen with no ties to this country, and his death occurred on Mexican soil, the very existence of any "constitutional" right benefitting him raises novel and disputed issues. There has been no direct judicial guidance concerning the extraterritorial scope of the Constitution and its potential application to foreign citizens on foreign soil. To date, the Supreme Court has refused to extend the protection of the Fourth Amendment to a foreign citizen residing in the United States against American law enforcement agents' search of his premises in Mexico. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez , 494 U.S. 259, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990). Language in Verdugo 's majority opinion strongly suggests that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to American officers' actions outside this country's borders. See Verdugo-Urquidez , 494 U.S. at 274-75, 110 S.Ct. at 1066. In Hernandez , the Supreme Court itself described the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims as raising "sensitive" issues. Hernandez v. Mesa , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2003, 2007, 198 L.Ed.2d 625 (2017).
Likewise, the plaintiffs can prevail on a substantive due process Fifth Amendment claim only if federal courts accept two novel theories. The first would allow a Bivens action to proceed based upon a Fifth Amendment excessive force claim simply because Verdugo might prevent the assertion of a comparable Fourth Amendment claim. But cf. Graham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1871, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) ("[A ]ll claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force ... in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other 'seizure' of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its 'reasonableness' standard, rather than under a 'substantive due process' approach."). The second theory would require the extension of the Boumediene decision, both beyond its explicit constitutional basis, Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause, and beyond the United States government's de facto control of the territory surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. See Boumediene , 553 U.S. at 771, 128 S.Ct. at 2262 ("The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total control of our Government.") (emphasis added). Moreover, even nine years later, no federal circuit court has extended the holding of Boumediene either substantively to other constitutional provisions or geographically to locales where the United States has neither de facto nor de jure control. Indeed, the courts have unanimously rejected such extensions.
The plaintiffs assert that because this is just a case in which one rogue law enforcement officer engaged in misconduct on the operational level, it poses no "new context" for Bivens purposes. On the contrary, their unprecedented claims embody not merely a "modest extension"-which Abbasi describes as a "new" Bivens context-but a virtual repudiation of the Court's holding. Abbasi is grounded in the conclusion that Bivens claims are now a distinctly "disfavored" remedy and are subject to strict limitations arising from the constitutional imperative of the separation of powers. The newness of this "new context" should alone require dismissal of the plaintiffs' damage claims. Nevertheless, we turn next to the "special factors" analysis assuming arguendo that some type of constitutional claims could be conjured here.
B. Special Factors
The plaintiffs argue that this case involves no "special factors"-no reasons the court should hesitate before extending Bivens . However remarkable this position may seem, it is unremarkable that the plaintiffs hold it. Indeed, they must. The presence of "special factors" precludes a Bivens extension. Given Abbasi 's elucidation of the "special factors" inquiry, there is more than enough reason for this court to stay its hand and deny the extraordinary remedy that the plaintiffs seek.
Abbasi clarifies the concept of "special factors" by explicitly focusing the inquiry on maintaining the separation of powers: "separation-of-powers principles are or should be central to the analysis." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1857. Before Abbasi , the Court had instructed lower courts to perform "the kind of remedial determination that is appropriate for a common-law tribunal ." See, e.g. , Wilkie v. Robbins , 551 U.S. 537, 550, 127 S.Ct. 2588, 2598, 168 L.Ed.2d 389 (2007) (emphasis added) (quoting Bush v. Lucas , 462 U.S. 367, 378, 103 S.Ct. 2404, 2411, 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983) ). Underscoring the Court's steady retreat from the "ancien regime " discussed above, that language appears nowhere in Abbasi . Instead, Abbasi instructs courts to "concentrate on whether the Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1857-58. In light of this guidance, the question for this court is not whether this case is distinguishable from Abbasi itself-it certainly is-but whether "there are sound reasons to think Congress might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy." Id . at 1858. If such reasons exist, "the courts must refrain from creating the remedy in order to respect the role of Congress in determining the nature and extent of federal-court jurisdiction under Article III." Id .
Applying Abbasi 's separation-of-powers analysis reveals numerous "special factors" at issue in this case. To begin with, this extension of Bivens threatens the political branches' supervision of national security. "The Supreme Court has never implied a Bivens remedy in a case involving the military, national security, or intelligence." Doe v. Rumsfeld , 683 F.3d 390, 394 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In Abbasi , the Court stressed that "[n]ational-security policy is the prerogative of the Congress and the President." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1861. The plaintiffs note the Court's warning that "national security" should not "become a talisman used to ward off inconvenient claims." Id . at 1862. But the Court stated that "[t]his danger of abuse" is particularly relevant in "domestic cases." See id . (citations omitted). Of course, the defining characteristic of this case is that it is not domestic. National-security concerns are hardly "talismanic" where, as here, border security is at issue. See, e.g. , United States v. Delgado-Garcia , 374 F.3d 1337, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("[T]his country's border-control policies are of crucial importance to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.").
In particular, the threat of Bivens liability could undermine the Border Patrol's ability to perform duties essential to national security. Congress has expressly charged the Border Patrol with "deter[ring] and prevent[ing] the illegal entry of terrorists, terrorist weapons, persons, and contraband." 6 U.S.C. § 211(e)(3)(B). Although members of the Border Patrol like Agent Mesa may conduct activities analogous to domestic law enforcement, this case involved shots fired across the border within the scope of Agent Mesa's employment. In a similar context-airport security-the Third Circuit recently denied a Bivens remedy for a TSA agent's alleged constitutional violations. Vanderklok v. United States , 868 F.3d 189, 207-209 (3d Cir. 2017). Relying on Abbasi , the Third Circuit's analysis is instructive:
[The plaintiff] asks us to imply a Bivens action for damages against a TSA agent. TSA employees [ ] are tasked with assisting in a critical aspect of national security-securing our nation's airports and air traffic. The threat of damages liability could indeed increase the probability that a TSA agent would hesitate in making split-second decisions about suspicious passengers. In light of Supreme Court precedent, past and very recent, that is surely a special factor that gives us pause.
Id . at 207. The same logic applies here. Implying a private right of action for damages in this transnational context increases the likelihood that Border Patrol agents will "hesitate in making split second decisions." Considering the "systemwide" impact of this Bivens extension, there are "sound reasons to think Congress might doubt [its] efficacy." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1858.
Extending Bivens in this context also risks interference with foreign affairs and diplomacy more generally. This case is hardly sui generis : the United States government is always responsible to foreign sovereigns when federal officials injure foreign citizens on foreign soil. These are often delicate diplomatic matters, and, as such, they "are rarely proper subjects for judicial intervention." Haig v. Agee , 453 U.S. 280, 292, 101 S.Ct. 2766, 2774, 69 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981). In fact, in 2014 the United States and Mexican governments established the joint Border Violence Prevention Council as a forum for addressing these sorts of issues. The incident involving Agent Mesa initiated serious dialogue between the two sovereigns, with the United States refusing Mexico's request to extradite Mesa but resolving to "work with the Mexican government within existing mechanisms and agreements to prevent future incidents."
Given the dialogue between Mexico and the United States, the plaintiffs are wrong to suggest that Mexico's support for a new Bivens remedy obviates foreign affairs concerns. It is not surprising that Mexico, having requested Mesa's extradition, now supports a damages remedy against him. But the Executive Branch denied extradition and refused to indict Agent Mesa following a thorough investigation. It would undermine Mexico's respect for the validity of the Executive's prior determinations if, pursuant to a Bivens claim, a federal court entered a damages judgment against Agent Mesa. In any event, diplomatic concerns "involve[ ] a host of considerations that must be weighed and appraised"-a sign that they must be "committed to those who write the laws rather than those who interpret them." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1857 (citations omitted).
Congress's failure to provide a damages remedy in these circumstances is an additional factor counseling hesitation. Abbasi emphasized that Congress's silence may be "relevant[ ] and ... telling," especially where "Congressional interest" in an issue "has been frequent and intense." Id. at 1862 (citations omitted). It is "much more difficult to believe that congressional inaction was inadvertent" given the increasing national policy focus on border security. Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1862 (citations omitted).
Relevant statutes confirm that Congress's failure to provide a federal remedy was intentional. For instance, in section 1983, Congress expressly limited damage remedies to "citizen[s] of the United States or other person[s] within the jurisdiction thereof." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Given that Bivens is a judicially implied version of section 1983, it would violate separation-of-powers principles if the implied remedy reached further than the express one. Likewise, under the Federal Tort Claims Act-a law that comprehensively waives federal sovereign immunity to provide damages remedies for injuries inflicted by federal employees-Congress specifically excluded "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k). Congress also exempted federal officials from liability under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq .
Taken together, these statutes represent Congress's repeated refusals to create private rights of action against federal officials for injuries to foreign citizens on foreign soil. It is not credible that Congress would favor the judicial invention of those rights.
Nor, under Abbasi , does the plaintiffs' lack of a damages remedy favor extending Bivens . The Supreme Court has held that "even in the absence of an alternative" remedy, courts should not extend Bivens if any special factors counsel hesitation. Wilkie , 551 U.S. at 550, 127 S.Ct. at 2598. Thus, the absence of a remedy is only significant because the presence of one precludes a Bivens extension. Here, the absence of a federal remedy does not mean the absence of deterrence. Abbasi acknowledges the "persisting concern [ ] that absent a Bivens remedy there will be insufficient deterrence to prevent officers from violating the Constitution." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1863. For cross-border shootings like this one, however, criminal investigations and prosecutions are already a deterrent. While it is true that numerous federal agencies investigated Agent Mesa's conduct and decided not to bring charges, the DOJ is currently prosecuting another Border Patrol agent in Arizona for the cross-border murder of a Mexican citizen. See United States v. Swartz , No. 15-CR-1723 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2015). The threat of criminal prosecution for abusive conduct is not hollow. In some instances, moreover, a state-law tort claim may be available to provide both deterrence and damages. That claim is unavailable here because the DOJ certified that Agent Mesa acted within the scope of his employment, and so the Westfall Act protects him from liability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1), (d). The plaintiffs concede that Agent Mesa was acting within the scope of his employment. Regardless, Abbasi makes clear that, when there is "a balance to be struck" between countervailing policy considerations like deterrence and national security, "[t]he proper balance is one for the Congress, not the Judiciary, to undertake." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1863.
Finally, the extraterritorial aspect of this case is itself a special factor that underlies and aggravates the separation-of-powers issues already discussed. The plaintiffs argue that extraterritoriality cannot constitute a special factor because this would multiply extraterritoriality's significance. But this misunderstands the Bivens inquiry and misreads Supreme Court precedent. The plaintiffs' argument relies on Davis v. Passman , in which the defendant argued that his conduct was immunized by the Speech or Debate Clause and, alternatively, that the Clause was a "special factor" for Bivens purposes. The Court held that the scope of the immunity and weight of the special factor were "coextensive." See Davis , 442 U.S. at 246, 99 S.Ct. at 2277. In other words, if the Clause did not immunize the defendant's conduct, then it was not a special factor. Similarly, the plaintiffs here suggest that extraterritoriality is not a "special factor" if the Constitution applies extraterritorially. This argument conflates the applicability of a constitutional immunity with the scope of a constitutional right, and thereby turns the Bivens inquiry upside down. Bivens remedies are not "coextensive" with the Constitution's protections. Indeed, in United States v. Stanley , the Supreme Court rejected a similar Davis -based argument, finding it "not an application but a repudiation of the 'special factors' limitation." 483 U.S. 669, 686, 107 S.Ct. 3054, 3065, 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987).
Plaintiffs also suggest that relying on extraterritoriality as an indicator of a "new context" and as a "special factor" double counts the significance of extraterritoriality and stacks the deck against extending Bivens . But Abbasi explicitly states that one rationale for finding a "new context" is "the presence of potential special factors ." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1860 (emphasis added). To the extent that this court double counts the significance of extraterritoriality, the Supreme Court has not foreclosed our doing so.
Indeed, the novelty and uncertain scope of an extraterritorial Bivens remedy counsel hesitation. As the Eleventh Circuit recently averred, the legal theory itself may constitute a special factor if it is "doctrinally novel and difficult to administer." Alvarez v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't , 818 F.3d 1194, 1210 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2321, 198 L.Ed.2d 724 (2017). An extraterritorial Bivens extension is "doctrinally novel." The Supreme Court "has never created or even favorably mentioned a non-statutory right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside the borders of the United States." Vance v. Rumsfeld , 701 F.3d 193, 198-99 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Nor has any court of appeals extended Bivens extraterritorially. See Meshal v. Higgenbotham , 804 F.3d 417, 424-25 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2325, 198 L.Ed.2d 755 (2017). Extraterritoriality, moreover, involves a host of administrability concerns, making it impossible to assess the "impact on governmental operations systemwide." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1858.
But novelty is by no means the only problem with an extraterritorial Bivens remedy. The presumption against extraterritoriality accentuates the impropriety of extending private rights of action to aliens injured abroad. According to the Supreme Court, "[t]he presumption against extraterritorial application helps ensure that the Judiciary does not erroneously adopt an interpretation of U.S. law that carries foreign policy consequences not clearly intended by the political branches." Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. , 569 U.S. 108, 116, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1664, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013). Even when a statute's substantive provisions do apply extraterritorially, a court must "separately apply the presumption against extraterritoriality" when it determines whether to provide a private right of action for damages. RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty. , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2090, 2106, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (2016). By extension, even if the Constitution applies extraterritorially, a court should hesitate to provide an extraterritorial damages remedy with "potential for international friction beyond that presented by merely applying U.S. substantive law to that foreign conduct." Id. at 2106.
The D.C. Circuit squarely addressed the issue of extraterritoriality in the Bivens context and concluded that it constituted a "special factor." See Meshal , 804 F.3d at 425-26. Like this case, the D.C. Circuit's decision in Meshal v. Higgenbotham involved a challenge to "the individual actions of federal law enforcement officers" for an injury that occurred on foreign soil. Id . at 426. Refusing to extend Bivens , the court noted that "the presumption against extraterritoriality is a settled principle that the Supreme Court applies even in considering statutory remedies." Id . at 425. Given this presumption, the court concluded that extraterritoriality was a special factor. Concurring, Judge Kavanaugh stressed that "[i]t would be grossly anomalous ... to apply Bivens extraterritorially when we would not apply an identical statutory cause of action for constitutional torts extraterritorially." Id. at 430 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). We agree. Not only would it be "anomalous," it would contravene the separation-of-powers concerns that lie at the heart of the "special factors" concept.
Having weighed the factors against extending Bivens , we conclude that this is not a close case. Even before Abbasi clarified the "special factors" inquiry, we agreed with our sister circuits that "[t]he only relevant threshold-that a factor 'counsels hesitation'-is remarkably low." See De La Paz v. Coy , 786 F.3d 367, 378 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Arar v. Ashcroft , 585 F.3d 559, 574 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc) ). Here, extending Bivens would interfere with the political branches' oversight of national security and foreign affairs. It would flout Congress's consistent and explicit refusals to provide damage remedies for aliens injured abroad. And it would create a remedy with uncertain limits. In its remand of Hernandez , the Supreme Court chastened this court for ruling on the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment because the issue is "sensitive and may have consequences that are far reaching." Hernandez , 137 S.Ct. 2003, 2007 (2017). Similar "consequences" are dispositive of the "special factors" inquiry. The myriad implications of an extraterritorial Bivens remedy require this court to deny it.
For these reasons, the district court's judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED .
Judges Jolly and Davis, now Senior Judges of this court, participated in the consideration of this en banc case. Judges Willett and Ho joined the court after this case was submitted and did not participate in the decision.
Judge Dennis concurs in the judgment.
Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment and with the majority opinion's conclusion that Bivens should not extend to the circumstances of this case.
See Hernandez v. United States , 785 F.3d 117, 128-33 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Jones, J., concurring).
Davis v. Passman , 442 U.S. 228, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979).
Carlson v. Green , 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980).
Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1855 (citing Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U.S. 275, 287, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1520, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) ).
See Piper v. Chris-Craft Indus., Inc. , 430 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 926, 51 L.Ed.2d 124 (1977) ; Cort v. Ash , 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975).
"Indeed," the Court states, its current approach suggests the possibility that the analysis in the three Bivens cases providing a damage remedy "might have been different if they were decided today." Abbasi , 137 S.Ct. at 1856. The dissent never acknowledges that Bivens claims are, post-Abbasi, a disfavored remedy.
Although the dissent purports to agree this is a "new context" for Bivens purposes, most of its reasoning about "special factors" asserts, contradictorily, that this case is "no different" than Bivens suits against federal law enforcement officers in wholly domestic cases.
Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko , 534 U.S. 61, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001).
Chappell v. Wallace , 462 U.S. 296, 103 S.Ct. 2362, 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983).
We will consider the potential intrusion on the Executive and Legislative branches in detail in the next section of this opinion.
See also Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 2500, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) ("It is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders.") (citing Verdugo-Urquidez , 494 U.S. at 269, 110 S.Ct. at 1063 ; Johnson v. Eisentrager , 339 U.S. 763, 784, 70 S.Ct. 936, 947, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950) ).
Boumediene v. Bush , 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008).
Bahlul v. United States , 840 F.3d 757, 796 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Millett, J., concurring) ("That holding, however, was 'explicitly confined [ ] 'only' to the extraterritorial reach of the Suspension Clause,' and expressly 'disclaimed any intention to disturb existing law governing the extraterritorial reach of any constitutional provisions, other than the Suspension Clause.' " (quoting Rasul v. Myers , 563 F.3d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Boumediene , 553 U.S. at 795, 128 S.Ct. at 2275-76 ) ) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 313, 199 L.Ed.2d 232 (2017) ; Al Bahlul v. United States , 767 F.3d 1, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc) (Henderson, J., concurring) ("Whether Boumediene in fact portends a sea change in the extraterritorial application of the Constitution writ large, we are bound to take the Supreme Court at its word when it limits its holding to the Suspension Clause." (citations omitted) ); Ali v. Rumsfeld , 649 F.3d 762, 771 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ("[The Court] explicitly confined its constitutional holding 'only' to the extraterritorial reach of the Suspension Clause and disclaimed any intention to disturb existing law governing the extraterritorial reach of any constitutional provisions, other than the Suspension Clause." (citations omitted) ); Igartúa v. United States , 626 F.3d 592, 600 (1st Cir. 2010) ("The Boumediene court was concerned only with the Suspension Clause ... not with ... any other constitutional text.").
Given the transnational context of this case, denying a remedy here does not, as the plaintiffs suggest, repudiate Bivens claims where constitutional violations by the Border Patrol are wholly domestic. See, e.g. , De La Paz v. Coy , 786 F.3d 367, 374 (5th Cir. 2015) (deferring to prior Fifth Circuit decisions "to the extent that they permit Bivens actions against immigration officers who deploy unconstitutionally excessive force when detaining immigrants on American soil").
Although the dissent contends that the Vanderklok court focused on the lack of TSA law enforcement training, we believe public safety was the court's overriding concern. See Vanderklok, 868 F.3d at 209 ("Ultimately, the role of the TSA in securing public safety is so significant that we ought not create a damages remedy in this context.").
DHS, Written Testimony for a H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform Hearing (Sept. 9, 2015), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/09/09/written-testimony-dhs-southernborder-and-approaches-campaign-joint-task-force-west.
DOJ, Federal Officials Close Investigation into the Death of Sergio Hernandez-Guereca (Apr. 27, 2012), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigationdeath-sergio-hernandez-guereca.
See Hernandez , 785 F.3d at 132 (Jones, J., concurring) ("Numerous federal agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the Inspector General, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the United States Attorney's Office, investigated this incident and declined to indict Agent Mesa or grant extradition to Mexico under 18 U.S.C. § 3184.").
President George H.W. Bush stressed this interpretation of the TVPA when signing the legislation. See Statement on Signing the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, Mar. 12, 1992), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=20715.
Of course, there are some very narrow exceptions. See, e.g. , Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1595, 1596, 3271 (creating private right of action for noncitizens against federal employees who engage in sex trafficking outside the United States).
Congress has also repeatedly authorized the payment of damages for injuries to aliens in foreign countries through limited administrative claims procedures. See, e.g. , 22 U.S.C. § 2669-1. The existence of such procedures is additional evidence that Congress's failure to provide a remedy in this instance is intentional.
The critical administrability issue, of course, is the uncertain scope of an extraterritorial Bivens claim. A court could attempt to tailor its holding to the facts of this case, thereby making sure the plaintiffs win-at least, at the motion to dismiss stage. But that will hardly deter the next plaintiff in the next case. During enforcement operations on the U.S.-Mexico border, it is not unusual for Border Patrol officers to be shot at or otherwise attacked from the Mexico side during patrols on land, on water, and in the air. If the dissenters' position here prevails, whenever Border Patrol officers return fire in self-defense, and someone gets hurt in Mexico, Bivens suits will follow. Moreover, nothing written by the dissent herein assures that if Bivens should apply here, no case will be filed against the Nevada-based operator of a drone flown far beyond our borders.

Opinion:
JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:
In my view, we need not decide the difficult question of whether a Bivens remedy should be available under the circumstances of this case because, under Supreme Court precedent, Agent Mesa is entitled to qualified immunity. I find compelling the plaintiffs' arguments that Hernández was entitled to protections under the Fourth Amendment in light of Boumediene v. Bush , 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), and the circumstances surrounding the border area where Mesa shot and killed him. See Hernandez v. Mesa , - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2003, 2008-11, 198 L.Ed.2d 625 (2017) (Breyer, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., dissenting). But the extraterritorial application of these protections to Hernández was not clearly established at the time of Mesa's tortious conduct. Mesa is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. See Mullenix v. Luna , - U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." (internal quotation marks omitted) ).
The plaintiffs contend that questions about the extraterritorial application of constitutional protections do not preclude Mesa's liability. After all, according to the complaint, Mesa essentially committed a cold-blooded murder. Surely every reasonable officer would know that Mesa's conduct was unlawful, the plaintiffs argue. While that is a fair point, I believe this argument is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent, which holds that the right giving rise to the claim-here, Hernández's Fourth Amendment rights-must be clearly established. See Davis v. Scherer , 468 U.S. 183, 197, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984).
In Davis v. Scherer , the Supreme Court held, "A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official's qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue." Id. (emphasis added). The Court stated that "officials can act without fear of harassing litigation only if they reasonably can anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages." Id. at 195, 104 S.Ct. 3012. In light of Davis , the plaintiffs' argument that Mesa forfeited his qualified immunity because his conduct was shockingly unlawful cannot succeed. I am therefore compelled to concur in affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
While the majority's opinion casts aspersions on the viability of plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim, I continue to disagree. As I discussed at length in my original panel majority opinion and in my original en-banc concurrence, a noncitizen injured outside the United States as the result of arbitrary official conduct by a law enforcement officer located in the United States should be entitled to invoke the protections provided by the Fifth Amendment. See Hernandez v. United States , 757 F.3d 249, 267-72 (5th Cir. 2014) (original panel opinion); Hernandez v. United States , 785 F.3d 117, 134-39 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (Prado, J., concurring). However, I focus here only on the "antecedent" question regarding the availability of a Bivens remedy. See Hernandez v. Mesa , - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2003, 2006, 198 L.Ed.2d 625 (2017).