Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Ashcroft v. Iqbal
ArgueDate=December 10
ArgueYear=2008
DecideDate=
DecideYear=
FullName=John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Javaid Iqbal, et al.
Docket=07-1015
USVol=
USPage=
CitationNew=128 S.Ct. 2931
Prior=
Subsequent=
QuestionsPresented=Can top government officials be held personally liable for allegedly knowing or condoning of racial and religious mistreatment of suspected terrorists?
Holding=
SCOTUS=2006-2008
Majority=
JoinMajority=
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Ashcroft v. Iqbal" is an ongoing legal case in which the United States Supreme Court has to decide whether Muslim men who were rounded up and subjected to harsh treatment after the September 11 attacks may sue John Ashcroft, the former United States Attorney General, and Robert Mueller, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The lawsuit was filed in 2004 by Javaid Iqbal, who was arrested in New York weeks after September 11, 2001, and detained for a year. Although Iqbal was never charged with terrorism or related offenses, he was deported after being convicted of fraud. Iqbal argues that he was beaten twice and subjected to daily body-cavity searches during his yearlong confinement, and his Quran was confiscated. Iqbal argues that Mueller and Ashcroft personally condoned the decision to detain him and other Arab immigrants.

The federal government complains that Iqbal's legal filings are not specific enough in linking the government officials with a policy of detaining Arab immigrants and Muslims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to dismiss the charges, concluding that they were 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".”

Further reading

*cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/05scotus-box.html |work=New York Times |publisher= |date=2008-10-04 |accessdate=
*cite news |first=Tom |last=Ramstack |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Justices poised for full docket |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/29/justices-poised-for-full-docket/ |work=Washington Post |publisher= |date=2008-09-29 |accessdate=