Case law · Highest court · Federal

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Decided
May 18, 2009
Docket
07-1015
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 149,772 timesNo negative treatment found in this library

What later courts said

  • holding that a complaint survives a motion to dismiss where the factual allegations state a plausible claim for relief — Hill v. Lappin (2010)
  • concluding that Javaid Iqbal failed to allege that the supervisory defendants created a policy that directed subordinates to discriminate by race or religion — Osu Student Alliance v. Ed Ray (2012)
  • holding that plaintiff must plead factual allegations that “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief” — Davinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States (2019)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

[*666] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

Javaid Iqbal (hereinafter respondent) is a citizen of Pakistan and a Muslim. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks he was arrested in the United States on criminal charges and detained by federal officials. Respondent claims he was deprived of various constitutional protections while in federal custody. To redress the alleged deprivations, respondent filed a complaint against numerous federal officials, including John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General of the United States, and Robert Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Ashcroft and Mueller are the petitioners in the case now before us. As to these two petitioners, the complaint alleges that they adopted an unconstitutional policy that subjected respondent to harsh conditions of confinement on account of his race, religion, or national origin.

In the District Court petitioners raised the defense of qualified immunity and moved to dismiss the suit, contending the complaint was not sufficient to state a claim against them. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint was sufficient to state a claim despite petitioners’ official status at the times in question. Petitioners brought an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court, without discussion, assumed it had jurisdiction over the order denying the motion to dismiss; and it affirmed the District Court’s decision.

Statutes cited

Cite this

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.