Ashcroft v. Abbasi

Editor's Note :

Ashcroft v. Abbasi

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Consolidated with:

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-1359	2d Cir.	Jan 18, 2017 Tr.Aud.	Jun 19, 2017	4-2	Kennedy	OT 2016

Holding: (1) The limited reach of the Bivens action informs the decision whether an implied damages remedy should be recognized in this case; (2) considering the relevant special factors in this case, a Bivens-type remedy should not be extended to the "detention policy claims" -- the allegations that the executive officials and wardens violated the detainees' due process and equal protection rights by holding them in restrictive conditions of confinement, and the allegation that the wardens violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by subjecting the detainees to frequent strip searches -- challenging the confinement conditions imposed on the detainees pursuant to the formal policy adopted by the executive officials in the wake of the September 11 attacks; (3) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in allowing the prisoner-abuse claim against Warden Dennis Hasty to go forward without conducting the required special-factors analysis; and (4) the executive officials and wardens are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to respondents' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).

Judgment: Reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part, 4-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 19, 2017. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court with respects to Parts I, II, III, IV-A, and V, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joined; Justice Kennedy also delivered an opinion with respect to Part IV-B, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Opinion analysis: Justices throw out most claims against federal officials in post-September 11 case (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Six-justice court sympathetic to government in detainee case (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Short-handed court to hear arguments in September 11 detainee case (Amy Howe)
Court adds three hours of oral argument to its merits docket (Amy Howe)
Petitions of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 29 2016	Application (15A898) 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 29 2016	Application (15A898) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until April 11, 2016.
Apr 1 2016	Application (15A898) to extend further the time from April 11, 2016 to May 9, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Apr 1 2016	Application (15A898) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until May 9, 2016.
May 9 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 8, 2016)
May 9 2016	Appendix of John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al. filed.
May 26 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 8, 2016.
Jun 8 2016	Brief amici curiae of Former U.S. Attorneys General William P. Barr, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jun 14 2016	Waiver of right of respondent James W. Ziglar to respond filed.
Aug 8 2016	Brief of respondents Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.
Aug 24 2016	Reply of petitioners John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al. filed.
Sep 21 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016.
Oct 11 2016	Petition GRANTED The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 15-1358 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 2016	Letter from the Solicitor General regarding case caption. VIDED
Nov 18 2016	Joint appendix filed. VIDED.
Nov 18 2016	Brief of petitioners John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al. filed.
Nov 25 2016	Brief amici curiae of Former U.S. Attorneys General William P. Barr, et al. filed. VIDED.
Dec 2 2016	Application (16A546) of respondents to file a consolidated brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. VIDED.
Dec 2 2016	Application (16A546) granted by Justice Ginsburg to file a consolidated brief of respondents on the merits is excess of the word limit. VIDED.
Dec 5 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, January 18, 2017. VIDED
Dec 7 2016	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.
Dec 12 2016	CIRCULATED.
Dec 12 2016	Motion of petitioners to enlarge the time for oral argument and for divided argument filed. VIDED.
Dec 19 2016	Brief of respondents Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 20 2016	Brief amici curiae of Professors of Civil Procedure filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 22 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Lawyers Association filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 22 2016	Brief amici curiae of Medical and Other Scientific and Health-Related Professionals filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 23 2016	Brief amici curiae of Immigration Detention Advocacy Organizations filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 23 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The American Association for Justice filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016	Brief amici curiae of Former Correctional Officials filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016	Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016	Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016	Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2016	Brief amici curiae of Karen Korematsu, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 6 2017	The 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 2017	Reply of petitioners John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 18 2017	Argued. 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.
Jun 19 2017	Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART and VACATED and REMANDED IN PART. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV-A, and V, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV-B, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. VIDED.
Jul 21 2017	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73