|
''Ashcroft v. Iqbal'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that top government officials were not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained after the September 11 attacks.〔http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ashcroft%2C_Former_ATT%27Y_Gen._v._Iqbal〕 The decision "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.〔Adam Liptak, ("Supreme Court Ruling Altered Civil Suits, to Detriment of Individuals" ), ''New York Times'', May 19, 2015.〕 == Background == Javad Iqbal, a Pakistani-American cable television installer from Hicksville, New York,〔(Supreme Court blocks 9/11 detainee suit by ex-LIer (Newsday) )〕 was arrested in New York in November 2001, on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and fraud in relation to identification documents (violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1028) and placed in pretrial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York.〔''Iqbal v. Hasty'', 490 F. 3d 143, 147–148 (2bd Cir. 2007).〕 He alleged that FBI officials carried out a discriminatory policy by designating him as a person "of high interest" in the investigation of the September 11 attacks solely because of his race, religion, or national origin. Owing to this designation he was placed in the detention center's Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit for over six months while awaiting the fraud trial. Iqbal claimed that on the day he was transferred to the special unit, prison guards, without provocation, "picked him up and threw him against the wall, kicked him in the stomach, punched him in the face, and dragged him across the room."〔First Amended Complaint in No. 04–CV–1809(JG) (JA), ¶113, App. to Pet. for Cert. 176a.〕 He said that after being attacked a second time he sought medical attention but was denied care for two weeks.〔Id., ¶¶187–188, at 189a.〕 According to Iqbal’s complaint, prison staff in the special unit subjected him to unjustified strip and body cavity searches,〔Id., ¶¶136–140, at 181a〕 verbally berated him as a "terrorist" and "Muslim killer,"〔Id., ¶87, at 170a–171a.〕 refused to give him adequate food,〔Id., ¶91, at 171a–172a.〕 and intentionally turned on air conditioning during the winter and heating during the summer,〔id., ¶84, at 170a.〕 He claimed that prison staff interfered with his attempts to pray and engage in religious study,〔id., ¶¶153–154, at 183a–184a.〕 and with his access to counsel.〔Id., ¶¶168, 171, at 186a–187a.〕 Mr. Iqbal pleaded guilty to using another man's Social Security card on April 22, 2002, served a prison term until his release on January 15, 2003, and was later deported to Pakistan.〔(Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court (NYT) )〕〔Brief of Respondents Michael Rolince, Former Chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's International Terrorism Operations Section, Counterterrorism Division, and Kenneth Maxwell,Former Assistant Special Agent in Charge, New York Field Office,Federal Bureau of Investigation in Support of Reversal, pg 1.〕 After being released, Iqbal brought claims under implied causes of action established by ''Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents'' for violations of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights as well as various statutory claims, including Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Iqbal argued that Mueller and Ashcroft personally condoned the decision to detain him as well as Arab immigrants. The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice had previously investigated and confirmed accounts of abuse of September 11 detainees like Mr. Iqbal.〔http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks (April 2003), (“OIG Report”).〕 The federal government argued that Iqbal's legal filings were not specific enough in linking the government officials with a policy of detaining Arab immigrants and Muslims. The District Court found that the facts alleged in Iqbal's complaint were sufficient. The district court also found that the OIG Report suggested that petitioners were personally involved in “creating or implementing” the policies that led to respondent’s confinement in the ADMAX SHU.〔Respondent Iqbal's Brief, pg. 6.〕 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court and refused to dismiss the action, concluding that it was plausible enough to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted review, in part, to address “whether conclusory allegations that high-level government officials had knowledge of alleged wrongdoing by subordinate officials are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in an action brought under ''Bivens''.” 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ashcroft v. Iqbal」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|