Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Ashcroft v. Abbasi

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Ashcroft v. Abbasi
Reference: 15-1359
Issue: Civil claims
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: January 18, 2017
Decided: June 19, 2017
Outcome
Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Vote
4-2 to vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito
Concurring
Thomas
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer


Ashcroft v. Abbasi is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on January 18, 2017, and was consolidated with arguments in Ziglar v. Abbasi and Hasty v. Abbasi. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan recused themselves from the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or disposition of the case as he was not on the court when arguments were held.

On June 19, 2017, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the judgment of the Second Circuit. In this case, the court held that it could not authorize an action for implied damages against former federal officials under the court's precedent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics because to do so would extend Bivens to a new context. Instead, the court held, such damages must flow from a specific remedy authorized by Congress and not the courts. The court further held that the federal officials were eligible for qualified immunity because, under federal law, the federal officials would not have known with sufficient certainty that federal law prohibited either the consultations with state officials or the resulting policies that prompted the lawsuit. The court sent the case back to the Second Circuit to determine if prisoner abuse claims made against a state defendant, Dennis Hasty, could proceed once that court conducted a required analysis. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks committed on September 11, 2001, various federal and state authorities coordinated investigation and detention efforts regarding suspected terrorists. Here, eight men who were never involved in any illegal activities but were detained during the investigation for a period of three to eight months filed a class action lawsuit against former INS Commissioner James Ziglar.
  • The issue: Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals commit legal error against Ziglar through the misapplication both of requirements for remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and of pleading requirements under Ashcroft v. Iqbal and did the appellate court erroneously deny Ziglar qualified immunity?
  • The outcome: On June 19, 2017, the court the court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the judgment of the Second Circuit.


    • In brief: In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks committed on September 11, 2001, various federal and state authorities coordinated investigation and detention efforts regarding suspected terrorists. As part of those efforts, eight men, the class of litigants as respondents here, were detained in either the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, or in the Passaic County Jail in Paterson, New Jersey. The respondents allege, inter alia, that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and former F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller, the petitioners, are personally liable for their detention based on the petitioners' oversight and approval of the policies under which the respondents were illegally detained. A federal district court in 2013 dismissed the claims against Ashcroft and Mueller, but a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the petitioners plausibly alleged substantive due process, equal protection, and conspiracy claims against Ashcroft and Mueller that could proceed to trial. Argument in the case was held on January 18, 2017, and was consolidated with arguments in Ziglar v. Abbasi and Hasty v. Abbasi.

    You can review the Second Circuit's opinion here.[1]

    Here are our pages on the consolidated cases: Ziglar v. Abbasi and Hasty v. Abbasi.

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case


    Background

    In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks committed on September 11, 2001, various federal and state authorities coordinated investigation and detention efforts regarding suspected terrorists. As part of those efforts, eight men, the class of litigants as respondents here, were detained in either the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, or in the Passaic County Jail in Paterson, New Jersey. On April 17, 2002, an initial group of plaintiffs, as a class, filed a compliant against various federal and state authorities. That complaint was amended on three separate occastions and subject to a lengthy series of legal proceedings prior to what was the operative complaint, the fourth complaint, under evaluation in this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.[1]

    The operative complaint alleged seven different claims against eight defendants, including the petitioners here, who were various federal and state officials. According to the opinion of the Second Circuit,

    “

    The first six claims, all brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), are: (1) a conditions of confinement claim under the Due Process Clause; (2) an equal protection claim alleging that Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to the challenged conditions because of their, or their perceived, race, religion, ethnicity, and/or national origin; (3) a claim arising under the Free Exercise Clause; (4) and (5) two claims generally alleging interference with counsel; and (6) a claim under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments alleging unreasonable and punitive strip searches. The seventh and final claim alleges a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). [2]

    		”

    The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that respondents failed to state a claim, that petitioners were subject to qualified immunity, and that Bivens relief did not extend to certain claims made in the complaint. A federal district court in 2013 dismissed the claims against Ashcroft and Mueller, but a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the respondents plausibly alleged the substantive due process claim (Claim 1), the equal protection claim (Claim 2), and the conspiracy claim (Claim 7) against Ashcroft and Mueller and that these claims could proceed to trial.

    After determining that Bivens relief was available for respondents' Claim 1, the court held that the respondents had raised a plausible claim. The court held that "by the beginning of November 2001, Ashcroft knew of, and approved, the MDC Plaintiffs' confinement under severe conditions, and that Mueller...complied with Ashcroft’s order notwithstanding ... knowledge that the government had no evidence linking the MDC Plaintiffs to terrorist activity."[1] In finding that the respondents' detention was not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objection here, the court held that Ashcroft and Mueller were not entitled to qualified immunity on Claim 1.

    Regarding Claim 2, while noting that the district court found the question of an equal protection claim against Ashcroft and Mueller to be a close one, the court that the petitioners had knowledge of and authorized practices that were discriminatory in their intent and application in this case.

    Regarding Claim 7, the court held that the respondents had presented a viable conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). According the court's opinion, "A conspiracy claim under Section 1985(3) has four elements: '(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (4) whereby a person is injured in his person or property or deprived of a right or privilege of a citizen' ... In addition, this claim requires that 'there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class‐based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.'"[1] Here, because Ashcroft and Mueller both had knowledge of, and had directed and implemented policies that resulted in, the continued detention of the respondents, the court held that a plausible conspiracy claim had been established that could proceed. Further, because the court rejected the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine defense raised at the pleadings stage—that a conspiracy is impossible because each of the governing entities are part of a single policymaking entity—the court held that a plausible conspiracy claim had been established that could proceed on the merits.[1][1]

    Regarding the other claims in the complaint, the free exercise claim (Claim 3) against Ashcroft and Mueller was dismissed in the Second Circuit opinion. The interference with counsel claims (Claims 4-5) were dismissed by the district court and those decisions were not appealed to the Second Circuit. The unreasonable and punitive strip search claims (Claim 6) were only brought against the MDC defendants in Hasty v. Abbasi.[1]

    Petitioners' challenge

    Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and former F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller, the petitioners, challenged the Second Circuit's holding that respondents' substantive due process, equal protection, and conspiracy claims against them are plausible, such that the claims should be adjudicated in a trial on the merits.

    Certiorari granted

    On May 9, 2016, Ashcroft and Mueller, the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit after three extensions for time to file were granted by the supervising justice for the Second Circuit, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Ashcroft's certiorari request on October 11, 2016.[3] Argument in the case was held on January 18, 2017, and was consolidated with arguments in Ziglar v. Abbasi and Hasty v. Abbasi. Neither Justice Sonia Sotomayor nor Justice Elena Kagan took part in the consideration or decision on the petition for certiorari.

    Arguments


    Questions presented

    Questions presented:

    "1. Whether the judicially inferred damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), should be extended to the novel context of this case, which seeks to hold the former Attorney General and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) personally liable for policy decisions made about national security and immigration in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
    2. Whether the former Attorney General and FBI Director are entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged role in the treatment of respondents, because it was not clearly established that aliens legitimately arrested during the September 11 investigation could not be held in restrictive conditions until the FBI confirmed that they had no connections with terrorism.
    3. Whether respondents' allegations that the Attorney General and FBI Director personally condoned the implementation of facially constitutional policies because of an invidious animus against Arabs and Muslims are plausible, as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), in light of the obvious alternative explanation-identified by the Court in Iqbal-that their actions were motivated by a concern that, absent fuller investigation, the government would unwittingly permit a dangerous individual to leave the United States."[3]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[4]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[5]

    Outcome

    Decision

    On June 19, 2017, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the judgment of the Second Circuit. In this case, the court held that it could not authorize an action for implied damages against former federal officials under the court's precedent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics because to do so would extend Bivens to a new context. Instead, the court held, such damages must flow from a specific remedy authorized by Congress and not the courts.

    The court further held that the federal officials were eligible for qualified immunity because, under federal law, the federal officials would not have known with sufficient certainty that federal law prohibited either the consultations with state officials or the resulting policies that prompted the lawsuit.

    The court sent the case back to the Second Circuit to determine if prisoner abuse claims made against a state defendant, Dennis Hasty, could proceed once that court conducted a required analysis. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[6]

    Opinion

    After a review of the factual and procedural history of the case, Justice Kennedy noted that courts must exercise restraint in authorizing civil lawsuits against government officials for damages in the absence of such authorization by the Congress. These types of lawsuits have been litigated previously within the context of the court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, but here, Kennedy noted that the Bivens rationale should not be extended to a new context if there were "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress. ... If there are sound reasons to think Congress might doubt the efficacy or necessity of a damages remedy as part of the system for enforcing the law and correcting a wrong, courts must refrain from creating that kind of remedy."[6]

    Justice Kennedy noted that "the proper test for determining whether a claim arises in a new Bivens context is as follows. If the case is different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court, then the context is new. Meaningful differences may include, e.g., the rank of the officers involved; the constitutional right at issue; the extent of judicial guidance for the official conduct; the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; or the presence of potential special factors not considered in previous Bivens cases."[6]

    In light of this, Justice Kennedy noted that the claims against the federal officials did not meet any of these criteria and, therefore, a court could not authorize a suit for damages under Bivens. Justice Kennedy did, however, note that the Second Circuit must conduct a special factors analysis under Bivens with regard to the claims made against Dennis Hasty of prisoner abuse. the court remanded the case against Hasty to the Second Circuit for this purpose.

    Finally, the court noted that federal law provided for qualified immunity for the federal officials because those officials would not have known with sufficient certainty that federal law prohibited either consultations with state officials or the policies resulting from those consultations.

    As a result of the court's opinion, the judgment of the Second Circuit was vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

    Concurring opinions

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in part and in the judgment. Justice Thomas joined much of Justice Kennedy's opinion, but wrote specifically to express his view that "in further elaborating the doctrine of qualified immunity for executive officials, however, we have diverged from the historical inquiry mandated ... Until we shift the focus of our inquiry to whether immunity existed at common law, we will continue to substitute our own policy preferences for the mandates of Congress. In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence."[6]

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In his opinion, Justice Breyer stated,[6]

    “

    The plaintiffs before us today seek damages for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. They alleged that federal officials slammed them against walls, shackled them, exposed them to nonstop lighting, lack of hygiene, and the like, all based upon invidious discrimination and without penological justification. ... In my view, these claims are well-pleaded, state violations of clearly established law, and fall within the scope of longstanding Bivens law. ... The Court, in my view, is wrong to hold that permitting a constitutional tort action here would 'extend' Bivens, applying it in a new context. To the contrary, I fear that the Court’s holding would significantly shrink the existing Bivens contexts, diminishing the compensatory remedy constitutional tort law now offers to harmed individuals.[2]

    		”

    The opinion



    Filings

    The court granted Ashcroft et al.'s certiorari request on October 11, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' filings

    • John Ashcroft et al., the petitioners, filed a merits brief on November 18, 2016.
    • Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi et al., the respondents, filed a merits brief on December 19, 2016.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following individuals filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioners, John Ashcroft et al.

    The following groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the respondents, Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi et al.

    • Brief of the American Association for Justice et al.
    • Brief of Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al.
    • Brief of Asian Americans Advancing Justice et al.
    • Brief of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association
    • Brief of Karen Korematsu et al.
    • Brief of various civil procedure professors
    • Brief of various former correctional officers
    • Brief of various immigration detention advocacy organizations
    • Brief of various medical, scientific, and health-related professionals

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • John Ashcroft et al., the petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari on May 9, 2016, after three orders extending time to file were granted by Justice Ginsburg.
    • Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi et al., the respondents, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on August 8, 2016, after an order extending time to file was granted by the court.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following individuals filed an amicus curiae brief in support of granting certiorari.

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Ibrahim Turkmen et al. v. Hasty et al., Ashcroft et al., and Lopresti et al., June 17, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Ashcroft v. Abbasi, granted October 11, 2016
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Ziglar v. Abbasi, argued January 18, 2017
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Ziglar v. Abbasi, argued January 18, 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Ziglar et al. v. Abbasi et al., June 19, 2017
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ashcroft_v._Abbasi&oldid=8891222"