Consumer Law

Locked Out: An Update to the Supreme Court?s Ruling on Ashcroft and Mueller

By Andy Hoffman

We told you the other day about the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Javaid Iqbal who was never charged with any 9/11-related terrorism, but nevertheless, suffered inhumane treatment in federal prison for months, and sought to hold former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert S. Mueller III accountable for his injuries.

Well, the Monday morning court wonks are now starting to weigh in on the matter?and they?re making some pretty disturbing observations (here, here, here).

In a nutshell?what appeared to be a simple case about whether high-level officials should be immune from suit in ?suspected terrorist mistreatment? cases, is now being viewed as an across-the-board, unprecedented increase of what ANYONE bringing ANY KIND of lawsuit must initially show in order to avoid having his/her case tossed.

According to Ian Millhiser, a lawyer with the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the Iqbal ruling was "a sweeping decision with the potential to impact every plaintiff in a civil lawsuit," adding that it has the effect of "abandoning the liberal pleading rules which have prevailed for decades."

Alan Morrison, former head of Public Citizen?s Litigation Group, said that all kinds of cases will be effected, including employment discrimination and products liability. "It's very troubling," he said.

In a strong editorial denouncing the decision, the New York Times observed it to be part of a larger pattern on the part of the Supreme Court?s conservative majority of locking people out of the civil justice process using ?legal technicalities,? a ?disturbing campaign of closing the courthouse door to people who allege unfair treatment."

Full post as published by ThePopTort on May 20, 2009 (boomark / email).