SCOTUS released their 5-4 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal today… with Kennedy writing for the majority opinion, and siding with the conservative side of the Supreme robed ones. (see opinion at at the bottom of this post)
Iqbal is a Pakistani Muslim who, in 2002, was detained for a year in NYC following the 911 attacks, and spent six of those months in solitary confinement. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud, and was deported to Pakistan after serving a 16 month sentence.
Iqbal then filed a lawsuit saying his Constitutional rights were violated based on discrimination of race, religion and national origin. Attorneys for Iqbal argued that “Ashcroft and Mueller personally crafted, approved and directed the implementation of these discriminatory policies.”
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 short, this is a lawsuit about “supervisory liability”. And while the SCOTUS opinion does, on the surface, appear to fall on the side of the officials responding to a national emergency, the majority opinion leaves open the possibility of remanding to lower courts, amending the “deficient” petition.
We hold that respondent’s complaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination against petitioners. The Court of Appeals should decide in the first instance whether to remand to the District Court so that respondent can seek leave to amend his deficient complaint.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Souter, the guy with one foot out the courtroom door, wrote the dissenting opinion.
….I am unsure what the general test for supervisory liability should be, and in the absence of briefing and argument I am in no position to choose or devise one.
Neither is the majority, but what is most remarkable about its foray into supervisory liability is that its conclusion has no bearing on its resolution of the case. The majority says that all of the allegations in the complaint that Ashcroft and Mueller authorized, condoned, or even were aware of their subordinates’ discriminatory conduct are “conclusory” and therefore are “not entitled to be assumed true.” Ante, at 17. As I explain below, this conclusion is unsound, but on the majority’s understanding of Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standards, even if the majority accepted Ashcroft and Mueller’s concession and asked whether the complaint sufficiently alleges knowledge and deliberate indifference, it presumably would still conclude that the complaint fails to plead sufficient facts and must be dismissed.
The SCOTUS ruling overturns the lower courts decision to allow Iqbal’s lawsuit to proceed, saying “Iqbal lacked the evidence necessary to cross the high threshold required to hold government officials personally liable for their official acts.”
Score one for the good guys for a change… at least for a while.
But wait, all is not well in litigation land. I guess if you can’t sue ’em, you get ’em disbarred.
A coalition of self-described “progressive” groups hired themselves an attorney – Kevin Zeese (and another link and just for you Wiki educated fans…). Zeese was also the MD’s Green Party/Libertarian Senate candidate hopeful back in 2006. More on Zeese?
Kevin Zeese is Executive Director of the Campaign for Fresh Air and Clean Politics (www.FreshAirCleanPolitics.net) whose projects include Voters for Peace (www.VotersForPeace.US., Prosperity Agenda (www.ProsperityAgenda.US), True Vote (www.TrueVote.US and www.TrueVoteMD.org) and Climate Security (www.GlobalClimateSecurity.org). He is also president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (www.csdp.org).
You get the drift….
“It is time to hold these lawyers accountable for violating their legal oath,” Kevin Zeese, an attorney for the coalition, said in a written statement.
“Just as the bar would suspend an attorney who advised a police officer to torture and brutalize a detained immigrant or criminal defendant, the bar must suspend these attorneys for advocating and causing the torture of war detainees. The disciplinary boards that hear these complaints must act or they will be seen as complicit in the use of torture.”
Zeese called disbarment “an important step toward the ultimate accountability of criminal prosecution.”
The group registered formal complaints against David Addington, John Ashcroft, Stephen Bradbury, Jay Bybee, Michael Chertoff, Douglas Feith, Alice Fisher, Timothy Flanigan, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes II, Michael Mukasey and John Yoo.
~~~The complaints, filed with the bars in California, the District of Columbia, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, also seek other forms of disciplinary action in addition to disbarment.
Apparently they are encouraged by a couple of unnamed government sources (you remember those two, right?) who suggested that an internal report by Holder’s Justice Department might urge state bar associations to take sanctions against the legal memo writers.
Boy, is that a Pandora’s box they want to open? LOL
Per Zeese’s op-ed I linked above (via his name), he believes:
It is a low threshold for legal ethics: if you use your license to facilitate war crimes you should lose your license. If the bar associations do not apply ethics standards to disbar torture lawyers what is left of legal ethics?
What can you say but lunatics at the helm, and standing before the bench.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Supreme Court Decision –
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
What’s sad is that it was a 5-4 decision and not a 9-0. Does this mean that the SCOTUS is now guilty of facilitating “war crimes” by this decision? These folks need to get off this “torture”kick once and for all… geeeezzzz!
Sarge
Have to agree, Sarge… that “supervisory liability” bit can go a long way. Ahem, Congress?
if Zeese pursues this, he could be opening a can of worms that the law profession would definitely not support. Holding a lawyer responsible for his legal opinions or for the actions of his “client” would change the way the legal system works, similar as to the way that malpractice lawsuits have had on the medical profession, but on an even greater scale. It would also tie up the court system with even more frivolous lawsuits.