| Ashcroft v. Iqbal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 10, 2008 Decided May 18, 2009 | |
| Full case name | John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Javaid Iqbal, et al. |
| Docket no. | 07-1015 |
| Citations | 556 U.S. 662 (more) 129 S. Ct. 1937; 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part, 2005 WL 2375202 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), affirmed, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2005). |
| Holding | |
| (1) Top government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. (2) The heightened fact pleading standards, as required by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), apply to all federal court cases | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6) | |
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without 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 Muslim men detained after the September 11 attacks.[1] The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it much easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.[2]
- ^ "Ashcroft, Former ATT'Y Gen. v. Iqbal". Archived from the original on January 8, 2009.
- ^ Adam Liptak, "Supreme Court Ruling Altered Civil Suits, to Detriment of Individuals", The New York Times, May 19, 2015.