U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, center, during the Informal JHA Council in Scheveningen, the Netherlands, Sept. 30, 2004. Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were among those named in a lawsuit by a Muslim man, Javaid Iqbal, alleging that they had engaged in racial and religious discrimination after 9/11.
ASHCROFT V. IQBAL (2009)
The five conservative Justices rejected decades of precedent to rewrite the requirements for pleading a case, jeopardizing the ability of individuals to challenge the conduct of the government, employers and others in court. Prior to the decision, plaintiffs were required only to present a short and plain description of their claims that provided fair notice to the defendant in order to launch a lawsuit. Now the Court shifted the burden to the plaintiff to produce sufficient facts to make the claim plausible and judges were given broad discretion to dismiss cases that failed this standard. Javaid Iqbal was detained after 9/11 as part of the huge roundup of Muslim men. He alleged serious abuse during his detention and sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller after his release, alleging that they had engaged in racial and religious discrimination. The decision found the claim insufficient because it did not present plausible evidence of Ashcroft’s and Mueller’s state of mind. The level of detail the Court demanded could not be obtained until Iqbal had the power of discovery.
