Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 556 U.S. 662, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3472, SCDB 2008-056
Tags: Civil Procedure, Pleadings
tl;dr:
This case extends the plausibility pleading standard as articulated in Twombly to all civil cases, extending the standard past the context of antitrust cases.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 2009 case, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the U.S. Supreme Court made a significant decision affecting civil lawsuits in federal courts. The case challenged the actions of top government officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller, based on constitutional grounds. Plaintiff Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim detained after the September 11, 2001 attacks, accused these officials of creating and implementing discriminatory policies targeting him and other Arab Muslim men, based on race, religion, and national origin.
Iqbal sued under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (1971), which lets individuals bring constitutional claims against federal officers for damages. The main issue was whether Iqbal's complaint met the "plausibility" requirement, as established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), to withstand a motion to dismiss. The Court ruled that Iqbal's complaint did not plausibly allege that Ashcroft and Mueller were personally involved or aware of the discriminatory policy or that they acted with discriminatory intent.
The Court also granted Ashcroft and Mueller qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. This decision has made it harder for plaintiffs to bring civil lawsuits in federal courts, particularly against high-ranking government officials, raising concerns about access to justice, judicial discretion, and separation of powers. Critics argue it undermines the role of the jury and favors defendants, while supporters claim it prevents frivolous lawsuits and protects government officials.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and held that the District Court's order denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss was appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. The denial of qualified immunity is an appealable order, even if there is no final judgment. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of petitioners because the District Court's order denying their motion to dismiss was a final decision that rejected the defense of qualified immunity and turned on an issue of law. To establish a Bivens violation, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through their own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. In cases of invidious discrimination violating the First and Fifth Amendments, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with discriminatory purpose.
Justice Breyer dissented from the majority opinion and agreed with Justice Souter's dissent. He argued that the Court's interpretation of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is not justified in preventing unwarranted litigation from interfering with the proper execution of the work of the Government. He believes that trial courts have other legal weapons to prevent unwarranted interference, such as structuring discovery in ways that diminish the risk of imposing unwarranted burdens upon public officials. Justice Breyer believes that the alternative case-management tools are not inadequate and, therefore, would affirm the Second Circuit's decision.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.