JAMES W. ZIGLAR v. AHMER IQBAL ABBASI
Supreme Court of the United States, Kennedy, June 19, 2017,
Constitutional Torts (Federal) – A lawsuit against a federal official for a violation of the Fourth Amendment can only go forward if it does not differ from Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in a “meaningful way” or there are “special factors” showing that the courts should let the suit go forward instead of letting Congress decide whether or not to allow a lawsuit under those circumstances.
(Opinion- Part IV-B- Kennedy with Roberts and Alito- Should allow the CoA to balance whether Bivens should be extended)
(Concur- Thomas- Qualified immunity should be viewed in context of 1871 common-law)
(Dissent- Breyer with Ginsburg- Bivens would not be extended by the facts here)
(Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch took no part)
A suit is inappropriate because there are other forms of relief available, though we’re in no way saying that these forms of relief are available…
Also, it may or may not be illegal to conspire with other individuals in the same agency. Circuit split? Man, someone should do something about that…
Facts:
Following 9/11, the FBI received over 96.000 tips of terrorist activity. Some of these tips led the FBI to encounter aliens present in the country without authorization.
If the FBI determined that the individual was not “of interest,” they were handled as normal.
If they were determined to be “of interest” or if there were doubts, the aliens were held without bail until cleared.
According to the complaint, prison guards engaged in a pattern of “physical and verbal abuse.” Guards allegedly slammed detainees into walls; twisted their arms, wrists, and fingers; broke their bones; referred to them as terrorists; threatened them with violence; subjected them to humiliating sexual comments; and insulted their religion.
Six of those who were detained under these conditions filed suit against DOJ officials as well as the prison wardens.
Seeking to invoke the Court’s decision in Bivens, respondents brought four claims under the Constitution itself.
First, respondents alleged that petitioners detained them in harsh pretrial conditions for a punitive purpose, in violation of the substantive due process component of the Fifth Amendment.
Second, respondents alleged that petitioners detained them in harsh conditions because of their actual or apparent race, religion, or national origin, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
Third, respondents alleged that the Wardens subjected them to punitive strip searches unrelated to any legitimate penological interest, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the substantive due process component of the Fifth Amendment.
Fourth, respondents alleged that the Wardens knowingly allowed the guards to abuse respondents, in violation of the substantive due
process component of the Fifth Amendment.
A claim was also made with regard to a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
Prior to trial, claims against the DOJ officials were dismissed by the judge. Most of the claims against the wardens were allowed to go through, however.
On appeal, the claims against the DOJ officials were reinstated.
They then requested that the Supreme Court review the case, claiming that
Constitutional Tort (Federal)- The US government can be sued for violations of the Fourth Amendment by federal officers. This is known as a Bivens suit, named for the Supreme Court case allowing it.
Constitutional Tort (Federal)- The US government can also be sued for violations of the Fifth Amendment (Related to Due Process) and the Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment).
Implied Cause of Action – Beyond those cases, the Supreme Court has limited itself to avoid implied causes of action unless Congress “intended to create the private right of action asserted.” And it “is logical to assume that Congress will be explicit if it intends to” allow people to sue under a statute that it creates.
Bivens Case- The Supreme Court has disfavored creating new “Bivens” actions. A Bivens action is “new” if it is “different in a meaningful way” from previous Supreme Court Bivens cases. A case might differ in a meaningful way because of the rank of the officers involved; the constitutional right at issue; the generality or specificity of the official action; the extent of judicial guidance as to how an officer should respond to the problem or emergency to be confronted; the statutory or other legal mandate under which the officer was operating; the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; or the presence of potential
special factors that previous Bivens cases did not consider.
Qualified Immunity- A government official has qualified immunity with respect to “discretionary” functions performed in the course of her official job. “Discretionary” here applies to official decision-making.
Qualified Immunity- A government official loses qualified immunity if they violate “clearly established” law. Law is “clearly established” if a court with oversight over the jurisdiction has made it “apparent” (obvious or beyond reasonable dispute) what the law is with respect to that issue.