Ashcroft v. al-Kidd
| Ashcroft v. al-Kidd | |
|---|---|
 John D. Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his involvement in the federal detention of Abdullah al-Kidd, an American citizen, in the wake of the September 11 attacks . | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (Part I) |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg (in judgment), joined by Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011), is a
Background
The plaintiff, Abdullah al-Kidd (born Lavoni T. Kidd in
At the time of al-Kidd's arrest, the
Al-Kidd filed suit against John Ashcroft, who was U.S. Attorney General from 2001 to 2005. Al-Kidd alleges that he was denied access to a lawyer, shackled, and strip-searched. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented al-Kidd, claim that he is one of 70 Muslim men who were similarly treated.[2]
The federal government said that Ashcroft has absolute immunity from such civil suits because he was acting within the scope of his duties as US Attorney General. In the alternative, Ashcroft has qualified immunity that prevents such suits unless the official violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation.[2]
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Ashcroft could personally be sued and held responsible for al-Kidd's
Opinion of the Court
On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court, in an 8–0 ruling,[8] stated that al-Kidd's lawyers had not met the high burden of proof needed to show that Attorney General Ashcroft could be personally sued, that he was directly involved or had explicit knowledge of the events (suggesting the matter was handled mostly by distant subordinates). The ACLU had sued him personally because it is very hard to sue a senior agent of the government in his or her official capacity (unless an individual commits a felony or other serious crime, in which case an elected official may be impeached) because American government bodies enjoy immunity from being sued. In the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, the court ruled that "Qualified immunity gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions. When properly applied, it protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Ashcroft deserves neither label" (internal citation omitted).[1]
Justice Kagan did not participate in the case as she had previously worked on the government's preparation of its case while serving in the Obama administration.[1]
Effect of the decision
The case is widely viewed as broadening the protection that qualified immunity affords to officials, and eroding civil liberties.[9][10][11]
See also
References
- ^ a b c Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ a b c d e Barnes, Robert (October 19, 2010). "Supreme Court to consider Ashcroft bid for immunity". Washington Post. p. A2.
- ^ "Constitutional Law--Arrest and Detention Under the Material Witness Statute--Objectively Reasonable Arrest Did Not Violate Fourth Amendment". The Mississippi Law Journal. 81 (3).
- ^ 18 U.S.C. § 3144.
- ^ "Terrorist or witness? Ashcroft v. al-Kidd and the material witness detention law | Duke University School of Law". law.duke.edu. Retrieved May 3, 2023.
- ^ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009).
- ^ "John Ashcroft can be sued for wrongful detention". Smh.com.au. September 5, 2009. Retrieved March 16, 2010.
- ^ "SCOTUSblog: Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd". Retrieved November 28, 2011.
- ISSN 0147-9857.
- ISSN 2151-3090.
- ISSN 1065-8254.
External links
- Text of Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)