Yes. The Constitution's Fourth Amendment protects 'the people,' which the court decided means U.S. citizens and foreigners who have a strong, willing connection to the U.S. Because Verdugo-Urquidez was a Mexican citizen living in Mexico and was brought to the U.S. against his will, he wasn't considered one of 'the people.' Therefore, the search of his property in Mexico did not have to follow U.S. constitutional rules.

Yes. This judge agreed with the result but for a different reason. He argued that it's simply not practical to require U.S. agents to get a U.S. search warrant for a search in another country. A U.S. judge has no authority in Mexico, so requiring a warrant would be pointless and weird.

Yes, the search was okay. This judge believed that because Verdugo-Urquidez was physically in the U.S. (even against his will), he was one of 'the people' protected by the Constitution. However, he also thought that the rule requiring a warrant doesn't apply in other countries, and since the Mexican police approved the search, it wasn't 'unreasonable'.

No. These judges strongly disagreed. They argued that if the U.S. government is going to charge someone with breaking U.S. laws, it has to follow U.S. rules (the Constitution) when investigating them. It's a two-way street: if you expect people to obey American law, the American government must respect their constitutional rights. You can't have one without the other.

No. This judge also disagreed with the majority. He believed that by prosecuting Verdugo-Urquidez, the U.S. government made him subject to its rules, so he should get the protection of those rules. He agreed that a U.S. warrant wouldn't work in Mexico, but argued the search still had to be 'reasonable' and based on good evidence (probable cause). He wanted to send the case back to the lower court to decide if the agents had good reason for the search.

No, the Fourth Amendment does not apply when U.S. agents search property owned by a non-U.S. resident in a foreign country because the Fourth Amendment talks about 'the people,' which means members of the U.S. political community. Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican citizen living in Mexico, had no voluntary connection to the U.S. that would make him part of 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court's earlier cases giving constitutional rights to non-citizens only apply to those with strong ties to the U.S. or who are inside the U.S. Using the Fourth Amendment here could make it much harder for the government to investigate and prosecute crimes in other countries.

I agree with the decision because I believe that if someone is being treated under our laws, they deserve privacy protection even when a search happens in another country. I think differently from the majority because I feel that rules meant to keep our searches fair should apply no matter where they occur, ensuring that everyone gets a fair shake no matter the location.

I agree with the decision because I see no rule broken by the search. But I think a bit differently from the majority because I believe that rules like getting a warrant are important even when a search happens in another country. In simple terms, fair procedures are needed to make sure government actions stay within proper limits.

The Fourth Amendment should apply here because even though Verdugo-Urquidez is not a U.S. citizen, he is being investigated and prosecuted under U.S. criminal laws. When the government uses U.S. laws against people from other countries, it has to respect their rights too, including the Fourth Amendment. It's only fair that if foreign citizens have to follow U.S. laws, U.S. agents have to follow the Constitution when enforcing those laws. The majority's focus on the words 'the people' and history isn't the right approach. What matters is what the government is doing, not who the accused person is.

I agree with Justice Brennan that when a foreign citizen is held responsible for breaking U.S. criminal laws, they should get Fourth Amendment protections like anyone else governed by those laws. But the part of the Fourth Amendment that requires warrants doesn't work for searches of non-citizens' homes in other countries because American judges can't authorize searches in other countries. The search should still be looked at to see if it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but there's not enough information to decide that here. I would send the case back to figure out if the search was reasonable.

We have observed that the Fourth Amendment, which protects "[t] he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," applies as much to illegal aliens inside this country

—holding that the Fourth Amendment protects only "the people" of the United States in the context of a search of a residence of a Mexican citizen in Mexico

Indeed, we have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States. "(citing Eisentrager, 339 US at 770, 784

—stating that "the people protected by the [First Amendment] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community

—holding the Fourth Amendment did not apply to a warrantless search of an alien's home outside the United States

The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to nonresident aliens in foreign territory.

—the Fourth Amendment does not apply "to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country."

Aliens receive constitutional protections only "when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country."

The Supreme Court citations that Kiyemba pointed to in making its statement about the application of the Due Process Clause to aliens likewise confirm that the decision was not addressing the procedural protections due in habeas corpus proceedings.

The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. Although conduct by law enforcement officials prior to trial may ultimately impair that right, a constitutional violation occurs only at trial

No. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search of a nonresident alien's property located in a foreign country. The Amendment's text, which protects 'the people,' refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed a 'sufficient connection' with the United States to be considered part of that community. Verdugo-Urquidez, a Mexican citizen and resident with no voluntary attachment to the U.S., does not fall within this class. The Court distinguished the term 'the people' from the more universal terms 'person' and 'accused' used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Historically, the Amendment was intended to protect the people of the United States from their own government's actions in domestic matters. Furthermore, applying the Fourth Amendment extraterritorially to aliens would have significant and deleterious consequences for U.S. foreign policy and military operations.

No. A violation of the Fourth Amendment has not occurred. While the Constitution's limits generally apply to government action abroad, specific provisions do not necessarily apply in all circumstances. The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is 'impracticable and anomalous' in a foreign setting due to the absence of U.S. magistrates, differing local privacy standards, and the need for cooperation with foreign officials. The 'the people' textual analysis is not the basis for this conclusion; rather, the practical realities of foreign operations make the warrant requirement inapplicable in this context.

No. The search was not unreasonable. Aliens who are lawfully present in the United States, even involuntarily like Verdugo-Urquidez, are among 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, the Warrant Clause has no application to searches of noncitizens' homes in foreign jurisdictions because American magistrates lack the power to authorize such searches. The search in this case, conducted with the approval and cooperation of Mexican authorities, was not 'unreasonable' under the first clause of the Fourth Amendment.

Yes. The Fourth Amendment should apply to this search. The majority creates a contradiction: the government can enforce its criminal laws against foreign nationals abroad, but it does not have to abide by the Constitution's limitations when doing so. By subjecting Verdugo-Urquidez to its laws and prosecution, the U.S. has made him one of 'the governed' and thus one of 'the people.' This principle of mutuality is fundamental; if we expect aliens to obey our laws, they should expect our government to obey our Constitution. The Framers intended the Bill of Rights to be a limitation on government power over all whom it seeks to govern, not a grant of rights to a select few.

Yes. The Fourth Amendment should apply. When the U.S. government holds a foreign national accountable under its criminal laws, it has treated that person as one of 'the governed' who is therefore entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. However, the Warrant Clause is inapplicable to a search of a noncitizen's residence abroad because a U.S. magistrate lacks the power to authorize it. The search must still be 'reasonable,' which for a criminal investigation requires probable cause. The case should be remanded to determine if probable cause existed for the search.

No, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country because the text of the Fourth Amendment refers to 'the people,' which is a term of art referring to the political community of the United States. Verdugo-Urquidez, a citizen and resident of Mexico, had no voluntary connection with the United States that would place him among 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court's prior cases establishing constitutional rights for aliens are limited to those with substantial connections to the United States or who are within U.S. territory. Extending Fourth Amendment protections in this case could significantly disrupt the government's ability to investigate and prosecute crimes committed abroad.

I concur in the judgment because I agree that the Government’s actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment, yet I differ from the majority in my interpretation of its application in extraterritorial contexts. I emphasize that constitutional protections must extend to anyone effectively treated as one of the governed, because fairness demands judicial oversight even when a search occurs abroad. My reasoning departs from the majority’s strict territorial analysis by stressing that the core values of privacy and mutual respect should guide our constitutional safeguards, ensuring that government authority is not exercised arbitrarily regardless of location.

I concur in the judgment because I believe that the search did not breach the essential protections of the Fourth Amendment. However, I diverge from the majority by stressing that even in international contexts, our courts must insist on clear procedural safeguards, such as the conceptual warrant requirement, to prevent arbitrary government action. My concurrence is rooted in the view that practical enforcement needs must not override the constitutional imperative of fairness because every individual subjected to government power deserves a baseline of judicial oversight.

The Fourth Amendment should apply in this case because Verdugo-Urquidez, although an alien, is being investigated and prosecuted under United States criminal laws. When the government enforces domestic criminal laws against foreign nationals, it must respect certain correlative rights, including the Fourth Amendment. Mutuality between the government and the governed is essential to the fundamental fairness that underlies the Bill of Rights. The majority's approach creates an untenable situation where foreign nationals must abide by U.S. laws, but U.S. agents need not abide by the Constitution when enforcing those laws. The majority's reliance on the term 'the people' and historical evidence is misplaced, as the focus should be on the government's actions rather than the identity of the accused.

I agree with Justice Brennan that when a foreign national is held accountable for violations of U.S. criminal laws, they are entitled to Fourth Amendment protections as part of 'the governed.' However, the Warrant Clause has no application to searches of noncitizens' homes in foreign jurisdictions because American magistrates have no power to authorize such searches. The search should still be analyzed for reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, but the record is insufficient to make that determination. I would vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings on the issue of reasonableness.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot