Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1358_6khn.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

2 

ZIGLAR v. ABBASI 

Opinion of the Court 

filed suit, leading to the cases now before the Court.

The  complaint  named  as  defendants  three  high  execu-
tive  officers  in  the  Department  of  Justice  and  two  of  the
wardens at the facility where the detainees had been held. 
Most  of  the  claims,  alleging  various  constitutional  viola-
tions,  sought  damages  under  the  implied  cause  of  action
theory  adopted  by  this  Court  in  Bivens  v.  Six  Unknown 
Fed.  Narcotics  Agents,  403  U. S.  388  (1971).    Another 
claim in the complaint was based upon the statutory cause 
of  action  authorized  and  created  by  Congress  under  Rev.
Stat. §1980, 42 U. S. C. §1985(3).  This statutory cause of 
action  allows  damages  to  persons  injured  by  conspiracies 
to deprive them of the equal protection of the laws. 

The  suit  was  commenced  in  the  United  States  District 
Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of  New  York.    After  this 
Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662 (2009), 
a  fourth  amended  complaint  was  filed;  and  that  is  the 
complaint  to  be  considered  here.    Motions  to  dismiss  the 
fourth amended complaint were denied as to some defend-
ants  and  granted  as  to  others.  These  rulings  were  the
subject of interlocutory appeals to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Over a dissenting opin-
ion  by  Judge  Raggi  with  respect  to  the  decision  of  the
three-judge  panel—and  a  second  unsigned  dissent  from 
the court’s  declining to rehear the suit en banc, joined by
Judge  Raggi  and  five  other  judges—the  Court  of  Appeals 
ruled  that  the  complaint  was  sufficient  for  the  action  to
proceed against the named officials who are now before us. 
See  Turkmen  v.  Hasty,  789  F. 3d  218  (2015)  (panel  deci-
sion);  Turkmen  v.  Hasty,  808  F. 3d  197  (2015)  (en  banc 
decision).

The  Court  granted  certiorari  to  consider  these  rulings.
580  U. S.  ___  (2016).    The  officials  who  must  defend  the 
suit  on  the  merits,  under  the  ruling  of  the  Court  of  Ap-
peals, are the petitioners here.  The former detainees who 
seek  relief  under  the  fourth  amended  complaint  are  the