Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Two former Bush officials not liable for alleged post-9/11 abuse (May 18, 2009)
A Supreme Court divided along familiar ideological lines ruled today that two high-ranking Bush administration officials cannot be sued by a Pakistani immigrant who said he was abused while held in detention after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Federal officials arrested Javaid Iqbal in New York City following the Sept. 11 attacks and held him at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn pending trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and fraud in relation to identification documents.
Iqbal ultimately pleaded guilty and, after the period at issue in the complaint, was sentenced to a 16-month term of imprisonment and removed to Pakistan.
Iqbal filed a lawsuit against then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other administration officials, claiming they violated his constitutional rights. Beginning in January 2002, Iqbal contends that he was held for more than 150 days in a maximum security unit that was known as the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit. He was held there because he was presumptively categorized as “of high interest” to the Sept. 11 investigations, solely because of his race, religion and national origin.
Iqbal’s attorneys argued that Ashcroft and Mueller personally crafted, approved and directed the implementation of these discriminatory policies.
Prior to the discovery process, several defendants and petitioners filed motions to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on ground of qualified immunity.
On Sept. 27, 2005, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York refused to dismiss all of the claims, noting that “the post-September 11 context” supported Iqbal’s assertion of petitioners’ personal involvement, and that “some of the defendants, in disclaiming responsibility, suggest that other defendants (who also disclaim responsibility) were personally involved.”
On June 14, 2007, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.
In asking the Supreme Court to review the case, the Bush administration argued that Cabinet-level officials should not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates.
In response, Iqbal’s attorneys asserted that Ashcroft was a principal architect of the policies challenged in the lawsuit while Mueller was instrumental in their implementation. Ashcroft and Mueller knew of or condoned the activities, they said.
On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“The complaint does not show or even intimate, that petitioners purposefully housed detainees in the ADMAX SHU due to their race, religion or national origin,” Kennedy wrote for the majority. ‘All it plausibly suggests is that the nation's top law enforcement officers, in the aftermath of a devastating attack, sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available until the suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity.”
The ruling, however, did not declare blanket legal immunity for administration officials. In remanding the case back to the Second Circuit, Kennedy wrote that Iqbal might have a case against other officials.
His “account of his prison ordeal could, if proved, demonstrate unconstitutional misconduct by some governmental actors,” the justice noted. “But the allegations and pleadings with respect to these actors are not before us here.”
Justice David Souter filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer also filed a separate dissenting opinion.
"There is no principled basis for the majority’s disregard of the allegations linking Ashcroft and Mueller to their subordinates’ discrimination,” Souter argued in dissent.
Question presented:
Whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.