Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday, March 28 and Wednesday, March 29. We will begin live-blogging at this link at 9:45 a.m.
On Tuesday the court hears oral argument in Lee v. United States. Amy Howe has our preview.

  Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case:
          

Ziglar v. Abbasi

Consolidated with:

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
15-1358 2d Cir. Jan 18, 2017
Tr.Aud.
TBD TBD TBD OT 2016

Issues: (1) Whether 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 Federal Bureau of Narcotics, erred 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 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) whether the Court of Appeals, in denying qualified immunity to Petitioner Ziglar erred: (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 (B) 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; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Respondents' Fourth Amended Complaint met the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Feb 26 2016Application (15A894) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 10, 2016 to April 11, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Feb 26 2016Application (15A894) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until April 11, 2016.
Apr 1 2016Application (15A894) to extend further the time from April 11, 2016 to May 9, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Apr 4 2016Application (15A894) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until May 9, 2016.
May 9 2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 8, 2016)
May 9 2016Appendix of James W. Ziglar filed.
May 26 2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 8, 2016.
Jun 8 2016Brief amici curiae of Former U.S. Attorneys General William P. Barr, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jun 8 2016Waiver of right of Federal Respondents to respond filed.
Aug 8 2016Brief of respondents Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
Aug 22 2016Reply of petitioner James W. Ziglar filed.
Sep 21 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016.
Oct 11 2016Petition GRANTED. The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 15-1359 and 15-1363 are granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Nov 10 2016Letter from the Solicitor General regarding case caption. VIDED
Nov 18 2016Joint appendix filed. VIDED.
Nov 18 2016Brief of petitioner James W. Ziglar filed.
Nov 25 2016Brief amici curiae of Former U.S. Attorneys General William P. Barr, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 1 2016Application (16A546) of respondents to file a consolidated brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. VIDED.
Dec 2 2016Application (16A546) granted by Justice Ginsburg to file a consolidated brief of respondents on the merits is excess of the word limit. VIDED.
Dec 5 2016SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, January 18, 2017. VIDED
Dec 7 2016Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.
Dec 12 2016CIRCULATED.
Dec 12 2016Motion of petitioners to enlarge the time for oral argument and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Dec 19 2016Brief of respondents Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 20 2016Brief amici curiae of Professors of Civil Procedure filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 22 2016Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Lawyers Association filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 22 2016Brief amici curiae of Medical and Other Scientific and Health-Related Professionals filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 23 2016Brief amici curiae of Immigration Detention Advocacy Organizations filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 23 2016Brief amicus curiae of The American Association for Justice filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016Brief amici curiae of Former Correctional Officials filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016Brief amici curiae of Karen Korematsu, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 6 2017The motion of petitioners for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument is granted in part and denied in part, and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General on behalf of petitioners in Nos. 15-1358 and 15-1359, 10 minutes for petitioners in No. 15-1363, and 30 minutes for respondents. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. VIDED.
Jan 11 2017Reply of petitioner James W. Ziglar filed. (Distributed)
Jan 18 2017Argued. For petitioners in 15-1358 and 15-1359: Ian H. Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 15-1363: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Rachel Meeropol, New York, N. Y. VIDED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards