Term: 2016
Docket: 15-1358
Ziglar v. Abbasi
- Pro
15-1358 ZIGLAR V. ABBASI DECISION BELOW: 789 F.3d 218 CONSOLIDATED WITH 15-1359 AND 15-1363 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR AND JUSTICE KAGAN TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 10/11/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Did the Court of Appeals, in finding that Respondents' Fifth Amendment claims did not arise in a "new context" for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown, Named Agents Of The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), err by defining "context" at too high a level of generality where Respondents challenge the actions taken in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, by Petitioner James W. Ziglar, then the Commissioner of the United States Immigration And Naturalization Service, the then-Attorney General of the United States, and the then-Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the detention of persons illegally in the United States whom the FBI had arrested in connection with its investigation of the September 11 attacks, thereby implicating concerns regarding national security, immigration, and the separation of powers? 2. Did the Court of Appeals, in denying qualified immunity to Petitioner Ziglar for actions he took in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, regarding the detention of persons illegally in the United States whom the FBI had arrested in connection with its investigation of those attacks, err: (A) by failing to focus on the specific context of the case to determine whether the violative nature of Mr. Ziglar's specific conduct was at the time clearly established, instead defining the "established law" at the high level of generality that this Court has warned against; and (2) by finding that even though the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to the actions of federal officials like Petitioner Ziglar was not clearly established at the time in question, Respondents nevertheless could maintain a § 1985(3) claim against him so long as his conduct violated some other clearly established law? 3. Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that Respondents' Fourth Amended Complaint met the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662 (2009), and related cases, because that complaint relied on allegations of hypothetical possibilities, conclusional assumptions, and unsupported insinuations of discriminatory intent that, at best, are merely consistent with Petitioner Ziglar's liability, but fall short of stating plausible claims? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-981, 13-999, 13-1002, 13-1003, 13-1662
The case of Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2016, revolved around the issue of whether or not high-ranking U.S. officials could be held personally liable for policies and practices related to detention and treatment of immigrants following the September 11 attacks. The plaintiffs were a group of non-U.S citizens who claimed that they were subjected to harsh conditions while being detained in a Brooklyn jail due to their nationality or race, violating their constitutional rights. They sought damages from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller III, and Immigration & Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar among others under Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents precedent which allows federal officers to be sued for damages caused by unconstitutional actions. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants with a 4-2 decision stating that any extension on Bivens was inappropriate as it is up to Congress rather than courts to create new forms of liability; hence these officials cannot be personally sued over official acts performed during their tenure unless explicitly authorized by Congress.
In the dissenting opinion for Ziglar v. Abbasi, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that the majority's decision to limit access to courts for constitutional violations was a departure from historical precedent. They contended that Congress had not intended to preclude detainees from seeking damages under the Constitution and noted past cases where similar claims were allowed. The justices also disagreed with the majority's view on national security concerns limiting judicial scrutiny of executive action in times of crisis. They asserted that it is during these times when individual rights are most at risk and thus need protection through judicial review. Furthermore, they expressed concern about leaving victims without any form of redress if their constitutional rights have been violated.
