The Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, but the body will not allow a class action lawsuit to proceed against ex-federal officials who oversaw War on Terror abuses.
Justices ruled 4-2 on Monday that Congress has not allowed the judicial branch to permit the lawsuit, which was based on alleged Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Before becoming a wider-reaching class action, the suit was filed by six Arab and South Asian men who were detained immediately after 9/11.
The litigation sought damages from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Immigration and Naturalization Services head James Ziglar. It accused the ex-top officials of crafting policies that led to their mistreatment while in jail.
The majority held that the litigation had “require[d] an inquiry into national-security issues,” and that it wasn’t appropriate for the courts to oversee such a probe.
“National-security policy…is the prerogative of Congress and the President, and courts are ‘reluctant to intrude upon’ that authority absent congressional authorization,” the majority wrote.
They additionally noted that any such lawsuit “could prevent officials from properly discharging their duties.”
The decision reversed an appellate court ruling, which said the former detainees could pursue civil claims against Ashcroft, Mueller and Ziglar. Appellate judges had also said the men could sue wardens at the federal facility in Brooklyn, where they were held.
Justices on Monday also tossed out the ruling against the wardens, but remanded the matter back to lower courts for further consideration—a course of action they did not take with claims against Ashcroft, Mueller and Zigler.
They noted that a 1971 Supreme Court decision, upon which the litigation was based, was “not designed to hold officers responsible for acts of their subordinates.”
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the dissent on behalf of himself and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that he did not believe the appellate decision was errant.
“At some point, the plaintiffs allege, all the defendants knew that they had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks but continued to detain them anyway in harsh conditions,” Breyer wrote.
He added that “[o]fficial government policy” led to strip searches, long stretches in solitary confinement and constant shackling “both before and after the defendants became aware of the plaintiffs’ innocence.”
The Justice Department inspector general, in 2003, found that 762 Arabs and Muslims were detained on minor immigration charges after 9/11, as part of an investigation into the terror attacks.
The internal watchdog discovered that guards had been “dragging [detainees] by their arms; stepping on the chain between their ankle cuffs; twisting their arms, hands, wrists, and fingers; and making slurs and threats such as ‘you will feel pain’ and ‘you’re going to die here.’”
Lawsuits against former Bush administration officials for War on Terror detention abuses had been dismissed by the Supreme Court before Monday’s ruling. Breyer inferred that this case should proceed because claims were “plausible.”
“The plaintiffs before us today seek damages for unconstitutional conditions of confinement,” he wrote.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote most of the majority’s opinion. He was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the ruling because oral arguments were held in January, before he was on the bench. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan recused themselves from the case.
