JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Thursday, August 04, 2011

Federal appeals court says Ashcroft immune from post-9/11 detainee lawsuit
Maureen Cosgrove at 11:24 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Wednesday ruled [opinion, PDF] that former US attorney general John Ashcroft [JURIST news archive] is entitled to absolute immunity from the claims of a Muslim American detained for two weeks after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 [JURIST news archive]. The ruling is consistent with the recent US Supreme Court [official website] decision [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd [Cornell LII Backgrounder] that reversed the appeal court's denial of Ashcroft's motion to dismiss. Ashcroft had appealed the decision [JURIST report] of the Ninth Circuit appeals court that absolute and qualified [AELE backgrounders] immunity do not shield him from the suit. Al-Kidd, an American citizen who was detained pursuant to a material witness warrant later found to be factually inaccurate, had argued that qualified immunity did not apply because the detention violated his Fourth Amendment [text] rights. The Supreme Court ruled 8-0, with four concurrences, to reverse and remand the appeal court's decision, holding that Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law and was thus entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court also ruled that a witness in a terror investigation cannot challenge the constitutionality of an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a validly obtained warrant even if the government did not call or had no intention of calling the witness for trial.

Various courts have issued opinions on claims filed by detainees against the government in relation to the post-9/11 detentions. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] in December 2009 that post-arrest detention is legal in cases where the detainees are reasonably detained. In November 2009, five men who claim they were illegally detained after 9/11 reached a settlement agreement [CCR release; JURIST report] with the US government for $1.26 million. In 2007, a district court judge granted the government's motion to dismiss [text, PDF] a number of those claims against Bush administration officials and law enforcement organizations in Turkmen v. Ashcroft [CCR backgrounder], but refused to dismiss the abuse claims. Also in 2007, the government criminally charged [JURIST report] several guards at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn [official website], the location in which men were detained, with abusing prisoners.




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Malaysia authorities seize newspapers, detain opposition activists
12:34 PM ET, May 23

 Member of feminist rock group Pussy Riot denied parole
11:56 AM ET, May 23

 Egypt court acquits police officers accused of killing protester
11:39 AM ET, May 23

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org