Ashcroft v. Abbasi

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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

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

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – 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 January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- 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.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
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.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

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

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Ashcroft v. Abbasi

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 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