Spokane7
68°
May 31, 2011 in Nation/World
High court throws out lawsuit against Ashcroft
The Supreme Court has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in the post-9/11 arrest of former University of Idaho football player Abdullah al-Kidd, shown here in Los Angeles on Feb. 14, 2011. By a 5-3 vote, the court said Ashcroft did not violate the constitutional rights of al-Kidd, an American Muslim who was arrested in 2003 under a federal law intended to make sure witnesses testify in criminal proceedings, but who was never charged with a crime.
(Full-size photo)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in the post-9/11 arrest of an American Muslim who was never charged with a crime.
By a 5-3 vote, the court said Ashcroft did not violate the constitutional rights of Abdullah al-Kidd, who was arrested in 2003 under a federal law intended to make sure witnesses testify in criminal proceedings.
Al-Kidd claimed in a federal lawsuit that the arrest and detention violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
He was held for 16 days, during which he was strip-searched repeatedly, left naked in a jail cell and shower for more than 90 minutes in view of other men and women, routinely transported in handcuffs and leg irons, and kept with people who had been convicted of violent crimes.
Even the justices who disagreed about the constitutional issue agreed that Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his role in al-Kidd’s arrest. The court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that denied Ashcroft immunity from liability in this case.
Supreme Court rulings allow high-ranking officials to be held liable but set a high bar: An official must be tied directly to a violation of constitutional rights and must have clearly understood the action crossed that line.
Even with Tuesday’s ruling, al-Kidd still has claims pending against the FBI agents who obtained the material witness warrant used to arrest him.
Al-Kidd is a former University of Idaho football player who now teaches English to college students in Saudi Arabia. He was headed to Saudi Arabia on a scholarship in 2003 when federal agents arrested him at Dulles International Airport.
The sworn statement the FBI submitted to justify the warrant had important errors and omissions. The $5,000 one-way, first-class seat that the agents said al-Kidd purchased was, in reality, a coach-class, round-trip ticket. The statement neglected to mention that al-Kidd had been cooperative or that he was a U.S. citizen with a wife and children who also were American.
Al-Kidd was never called to testify in the terrorism-related trial for which he was ostensibly needed, as was the case with roughly three dozen men, almost all Muslims, who were arrested and held in the months and years after Sept. 11 under the material witness statute.
The lawsuit against Ashcroft, attorney general from 2001 to 2005, stemmed from comments he made shortly after 9/11 that the government would preventively detain people suspected of terrorist ties, even if it had no evidence they committed a crime.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in allowing the lawsuit against Ashcroft to go forward, said using the material witness statute as a pretext to detain someone was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court rejected that argument “We hold…that Ashcroft did not violate al-Kidd’s Fourth Amendment rights,” Scalia said. The five justices in the majority on this aspect of the decision are all Republican appointees.
But one of those justices, Anthony Kennedy, wrote separately to stress the narrowness of the decision. Kennedy said the case left unresolved how broadly the government may use the material witness statute, which has existed in one form or another since 1789.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have resolved the case solely on the ground that Ashcroft could not be sued, whether or not al-Kidd’s arrest violated the Constitution.
Sotomayor said no previous case involving allegedly unlawful arrests “involved prolonged detention of an individual without probable cause to believe he had committed any criminal offense.”
Ginsburg said al-Kidd’s “ordeal is a grim reminder of the need to install safeguards against disrespect for human dignity, constraints that will control officialdom even in perilous times.”
Al-Kidd’s case was the latest involving national security matters in which Justice Elena Kagan did not participate because she worked on the issue when she was solicitor general.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
eagleproducer on May 31 at 10:28 a.m.
Impunity comes with power. It’s why power is sought.
leekinny on May 31 at 12:31 p.m.
from Human Rights Watch…
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/28/us-misuse-material-witness-statute
If the Conservatives get their way on this, will any US citizen ever be safe from detention?
hawken on May 31 at 3:01 p.m.
Impunity as decided by the US Supreme Court is called “justice.”
Diana on May 31 at 4:12 p.m.
Unless, of course, you disagree with the decision, hawken.
mikeln on May 31 at 6:10 p.m.
This kind of impunity leads to mis-deeds by people in power, always has, always will. When faced with the treason that was the bush-cheany administration we failed as a nation to demand that the people involved be tried as the crimminals they are.
mikeln on May 31 at 6:13 p.m.
I guess what hawken said means we no longer have to worry about roe v wade. You guys can’t have it both ways.
ManleyPointer on May 31 at 6:24 p.m.
Most of the Supreme Court’s liberal wing indicated that Ashcroft could not be sued. It’s not really a conservative vs. liberal thing.
I think the government clearly overreached in this case, in spite of Kidd’s laughable personal grooming. I also think, given the guy’s conversion to the ridiculous religion of Islam, his treatment by the US government and his current residence in the belly of the beast, that he’s undoubtedly been radicalized. Better keep a close eye on him if and when he comes back here.
johnclarke on May 31 at 6:56 p.m.
Yes Manly, this is how angry people are made. Treat me like that, and I’d be pretty angry too. Held for 13 days without charges?
ManleyPointer on May 31 at 7:03 p.m.
Oh, no argument from me, JC. I am in total support of a person’s right to believe what he wants (even if it’s silly), and to speak his mind. The shaved-head-and-beard look still makes him look a little goofy, though. And I’ll bet that he was more than a little angry to begin with.
ManleyPointer on May 31 at 7:04 p.m.
And let him try to pull something having to do with freedom of speech and religion in his new homeland, and he’ll get held a whole lot longer than 13 days, with or without charges.
johnclarke on May 31 at 7:25 p.m.
Yeah man, but we are supposed to be better than that. Using a law for other than it’s intended purpose to “preventively detain” is not cool. Oh, it was 16 days not 13.
ManleyPointer on May 31 at 7:39 p.m.
We ARE supposed to be better than that. Unfortunately, crises always bring out the best and worst of people; history is replete etc, etc.
DickAdams on May 31 at 8:31 p.m.
Its a simple case of double standards. Been going on for as long as I can remember. I`ll be 82 years old this year. The justice system is broken. Period.
greenlibertarian on May 31 at 8:47 p.m.
Evaluating the substantial legal issues involved on the basis of the man’s grooming.
Brilliant.
ManleyPointer on May 31 at 9:46 p.m.
Hey, grooming is important. So is a sense of humor.
greenlibertarian on May 31 at 10:44 p.m.
Government abuse of power, now once again sanctioned by the SCOTUS, is not a humorous matter.
The government attempted to trump up (lie) charges against this guy, who had done no wrong.
Their are REAL BAD GUYS who need to be dealt with, while the government is WASTING time and scarce resources on this poor sap.