Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd is a 2011 case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a civil suit filed in federal court challenging the detention of Muslim-Americans in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The plaintiff, Abudulla al-Kidd (born Lavni T Kidd), was a prominent football player at the University of Idaho. While at college, Kidd converted to Islam and adopted the name Abudulla al-Kidd.[1] Al-Kidd was arrested in 2003 as he was boarding a flight to Saudi Arabia, where he planned to study. He was held for 15 nights under the federal material-witness statute[2] because he was to testify in the trial of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller told Congress that al-Kidd's capture was one of the FBI's "success" stories.[1] Al-Kidd was never charged with a crime or called as a witness and was ultimately released.
Al-Kidd filed suit against John Ashcroft who was U.S. Attorney General from 2001 to 2005. Al-Kidd alleges that he was strip-searched, shackled, interrogated without a lawyer present, and treated as a terrorist. The American Civil Liberties Union lawyers who represent al-Kidd claim that he is one of 70 Muslim men who were similarly treated.[1]
Aschroft claims that he has absolute immunity from such civil suits because he was acting within the scope of his duties as Attorney General. In the alternative, Ashcroft claims that he has qualified immunity that prevents such suits unless the official acted in violation of a clearly established constitutional right.[1]
In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Ashcroft could be sued and held personally responsible for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd - an American citizen.[3] On October 18, 2010, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Ashcroft's appeal of the court of appeals ruling.[1]
On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court, in a 8-0 ruling[4], stated that Al-Kidd's lawyers had not met the high burden of proof needed to show that Attorney General Ashcroft could be personally sued, that he was directly involved or had explicit knowledge of the events (suggesting the matter was handled mostly by distant subordinates). The lawyers had sued him personally because it is very hard to sue a senior agent of the government in his or her official capacity (unless they themselves commit a felony or other serious crime, where they are likely to be impeached), because American government bodies enjoy immunity from being sued. Justice Kagan did not participate in the case.[5]