Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2016 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 15–1358.  Argued January 18, 2017—Decided June 19, 2017* 

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the 
Federal  Government  ordered  hundreds  of  illegal  aliens  to  be  taken
into custody and held pending a determination whether a particular
detainee had connections to terrorism.  Respondents, six men of Arab
or  South  Asian  descent,  were  detained  for  periods  of  three  to  six
months  in  a  federal  facility  in  Brooklyn.    After  their  release,  they 
were removed from the United States.  They then filed this putative
class  action  against  petitioners,  two  groups  of  federal  officials.    The 
first  group  consisted  of  former  Attorney  General  John  Ashcroft,  for-
mer  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation  Director  Robert  Mueller,  and 
former Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James
Ziglar (Executive Officials).  The second group consisted of the facili-
ty’s warden and assistant warden Dennis Hasty and James Sherman
(Wardens).    Respondents  sought  damages  for  constitutional  viola-
tions  under  the  implied  cause  of  action  theory  adopted  in  Bivens  v. 
Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, alleging that peti-
tioners detained them in harsh pretrial conditions for a punitive pur-
pose, in violation of the Fifth Amendment; that petitioners did so be-
cause of their actual or apparent race, religion, or national origin, in 
violation of the Fifth Amendment; that the Wardens subjected them 
to  punitive  strip  searches,  in  violation  of  the  Fourth  and  Fifth
Amendments; and that the Wardens knowingly allowed the guards to
abuse them, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Respondents also
brought  a  claim  under  42  U. S. C.  §1985(3),  which  forbids  certain 

—————— 

*Together  with  No.  15–1359,  Ashcroft,  Former  Attorney  General, 
et al. v. Abbasi et al., and No. 15–1363, Hasty et al. v. Abbasi et al., also 
on certiorari to the same court.