Ziglar v. Abbasi
| Company type | Nonprofit organization |
|---|---|
| Industry | Legal advocacy |
| Headquarters | New York City , United States |
Area served | United States |
Key people | David D. Cole, Rachel Meeropol |
| Products | Legal representation, civil rights litigation |
| Website | ccrjustice |
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), represents a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which, by a 4–2 vote, the Court determined that non-citizens held following the September 11 attacks are not entitled to seek monetary compensation from senior federal officials concerning the conditions of their detention. This case was consolidated with Hasty v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi, with oral arguments heard on January 18, 2017.
The class action was initiated by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and named as defendants then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, former INS Commissioner James Ziglar, along with staff members of the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) located in Brooklyn, New York. The suit represented Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens detained for extended periods under immigration pretenses in the aftermath of 9/11.
Background
In response to the U.S. government response to the September 11 attacks, federal authorities detained 762 individuals who were unlawfully present in the country, with approximately 60% held in New York. Those considered "of high interest" were placed in FBI custody for clearance purposes; among them, 84 were confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC).
On April 17, 2002, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, accusing the United States Department of Justice and MDC of violating both the Equal Protection Clause and substantive due process protections, relying on an implied cause of action derived from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971).
The complaint alleged that the Immigration and Naturalization Service improperly detained plaintiffs for months beyond the conclusion of immigration proceedings to facilitate FBI terrorism inquiries, infringing upon their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Additionally, it claimed unconstitutional detention conditions such as placement in the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit (ADMAX SHU), limitations on attorney and family visits, denial of religious observances, and cruel treatment including verbal and physical abuse. Representation for plaintiffs was provided by Georgetown Law professor David D. Cole alongside attorney Rachel Meeropol.
On June 14, 2006, Judge John Gleeson permitted claims based on substantive due process and equal protection to move forward. Subsequently, in February 2008, the matter was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which included then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. On December 18, 2009, an unsigned two-judge panel decision upheld part of the case; Judge Sotomayor recused herself after her appointment to the Supreme Court. The case was sent back for reconsideration under revised pleading standards established by Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009).
On November 3, 2009, a settlement totaling $1.26 million was announced by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of six MDC plaintiffs.
Throughout litigation, four amended complaints were submitted incorporating findings from April and December 2003 reports by the United States Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General detailing abuses at MDC. On January 15, 2013, Judge Gleeson dismissed claims against DOJ defendants but allowed constitutional claims against MDC personnel to proceed.
The Second Circuit ruled on June 17, 2015 that litigation could continue. Judges Rosemary S. Pooler and Richard Wesley affirmed Judge Gleeson's rulings regarding MDC defendants but reversed dismissal of claims against DOJ officials despite a dissent from Judge Reena Raggi, who advocated for qualified immunity protections. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied on December 11, 2015 by an evenly split court with six judges dissenting.
Supreme Court
Circuit Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg granted extensions on February 29 and April 1, 2016, at the request of the Solicitor General of the United States to prolong the deadline for submitting a petition for a writ of certiorari. Subsequently, on October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court consented to hear the case, with Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan recusing themselves from participation. Analysts observed that the plaintiffs faced significant challenges, given that in comparable counterterrorism cases recently reviewed, the Court had consistently ruled in favor of government petitions after losses in lower courts, resulting in no victories for plaintiffs. Oral arguments took place on January 18, 2017, featuring Ian Heath Gershengorn representing the federal petitioners alongside counsel for the detainees.
Opinion of the Court
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a decision supporting federal officials by partially reversing and vacating prior rulings and remanding the case by a vote of 4-2. Justice Anthony Kennedy, with full agreement from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and partial concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas, determined that the implied cause of action established in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971) should not be extended to federal officials' detention policies.
The Court examined the evolution of Bivens, noting only two expansions since its inception—one in 1979 addressing gender discrimination and another in 1980 concerning cruel and unusual punishment. Referring to that era as an "ancien regime," the Court stressed contemporary deference to separation of powers principles and underscored the necessity for explicit legislative intent before allowing damages claims against federal actors.
Concluding that the detainees’ allegations arose within a novel context distinct from previous Bivens scenarios, the Court found no special factors warranting judicial intervention. It cited national security implications tied to high-level Executive Branch decisions following terrorist events, Congress’s silence regarding such lawsuits, and available alternative remedies such as injunctions or habeas corpus petitions. As a result, detainees were barred from pursuing claims against federal officials.
Concerning allegations of detainee mistreatment against MDC Warden Hasty, these too presented a new context since earlier cases involved convicted inmates under Eighth Amendment protections rather than detainees’ Fifth Amendment claims. The Court remanded these allegations for further examination by lower courts to assess special factors. Lastly, it granted qualified immunity on civil conspiracy claims to all defendants, recognizing but not resolving existing circuit court disagreements over intra-government conspiracies.
Justice Thomas's concurrence in part and concurrence in judgment
Justice Thomas did not join the Court’s decision to remand claims against MDC Warden Hasty. He criticized the qualified immunity doctrine as incompatible with statutory common-law language and asserted it prioritizes judicial policy judgments over Congressional intent.
Justice Breyer's dissent
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented and delivered his dissenting opinion orally during the announcement.
See also
External links
- Case details on SCOTUSblog
- Case information at University of Michigan Law School Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
- Turkmen v. Ashcroft provided by Center for Constitutional Rights