Ashcroft v. Iqbal
Case Date: 05/18/2009
|
Top government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity.
The heightened fact pleading standards, as required by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, was extended to all Federal court cases
Court membership
Chief Justice
Associate Justices
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that top government officials were not liable for the actions of their subordinates absent 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 individuals detained after of the September 11 attacks.[1]
|