Document: 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) John D. ASHCROFT, Former Attorney General, et al., Petitioners, v. Javaid IQBAL al. No. 07-1015. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 10, 2008. Decided May 18, 2009. *1942 Gregory G. Garre, Solicitor Washington, DC, for Petitioners. Alexander A. Reinert, Respondents. Lauren J. Resnick, Fernando Bohorquez, Jr., Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, NY, Thomas Warren Karl Fanter, Cleveland, OH, Michael Rolince. Leslie R. Caldwell, Morgan, Lewis Bockius Brett M. Schuman, San Francisco, CA, Kenneth Maxwell. L. Martinez, David E. Bell, Matthew F. Scarlato, Crowell Moring Respondent Dennis Hasty. Ball, Rima Oken, Jennifer Brace, Etai Lahav, Well, Gotshal Manges Joan Magoolaghan, Elizabeth Koob, Koob Yonkers, Iqbal. Acting Katsas, Assistant Jonathan Cohn, Deputy Curtis Gannon, to the Barbara Herwig, Robert Loeb, Sarang Vijay Damle, D.C., Justice KENNEDY delivered opinion Court. Iqbal is a citizen Pakistan and Muslim. In wake September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks he was arrested in States on criminal charges detained by federal officials. claims deprived various constitutional protections while custody. To redress alleged deprivations, respondent filed complaint against numerous officials, including Ashcroft, former General States, Mueller, Director Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI). Ashcroft Mueller are petitioners case now before us. As these two petitioners, alleges that they adopted an unconstitutional policy subjected harsh conditions confinement account his race, religion, or national origin. District raised defense qualified immunity moved dismiss suit, contending not sufficient state claim them. The denied motion dismiss, concluding despite petitioners' official status at times question. Petitioners brought interlocutory appeal Appeals Second Circuit. court, without discussion, assumed it had jurisdiction over order denying dismiss; affirmed Court's decision. Respondent's prison ordeal could, if proved, demonstrate misconduct some governmental actors. But allegations pleadings with respect actors us here. This instead turns narrower question: Did respondent, as plaintiff Court, *1943 plead factual matter that, taken true, states him clearly established rights. We hold respondent's insufficient. I Following 2001 attacks, FBI other entities within Department began investigation vast reach identify assailants prevent them from attacking anew. dedicated more than 4,000 special agents 3,000 support personnel endeavor. By 18 "the received 96,000 tips potential leads public." Dept. Justice, Office Inspector 11 Detainees: A Review Treatment Aliens Held Immigration Charges Connection Attacks 1, 11-12 (Apr.2003) (hereinafter OIG Report), http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/ 0306/ full.pdf?bcsi_scan_61073EC0F74759AD=0 bcsi_scan_filename=full.pdf (as visited 14, 2009, available Clerk file). ensuing months questioned 1,000 people suspected links particular terrorism general. Id., 1. Of those individuals, 762 were held immigration charges; 184-member subset group deemed be "of `high interest'" investigation. 111. high-interest detainees under restrictive designed communicating general population outside world. 112-113. one detainees. According complaint, November Naturalization Service fraud relation identification documents conspiracy defraud Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 147-148 (C.A.2 2007). Pending trial crimes, housed Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) Brooklyn, York. designated person high interest" January 2002 placed section MDC known Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit (ADMAX SHU). 148. facility's name indicates, ADMAX SHU incorporates maximum security allowable Prison regulations. Ibid. kept lockdown 23 hours day, spending remaining hour their cells handcuffs leg irons accompanied four-officer escort. pleaded guilty charges, served term imprisonment, removed native Pakistan. 149. He then Bivens action Eastern York 34 current officials 19 "John Doe" corrections officers. See Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 1999, 29 Ed. 2d 619 (1971). defendants range correctional officers who day-to-day contact during confinement, wardens facility, all way petitionersofficials highest level law enforcement hierarchy. First Amended Complaint 04-CV-1809 (JG)(JA), ¶¶ 10-11, App. Pet. Cert. 157a Complaint). 21-cause-of-action does challenge arrest MDC's population. Rather, concentrates *1944 treatment confined SHU. sets forth For instance, jailors "kicked stomach, punched face, dragged across" cell justification, id., ¶ 113, 176a; serial strip body-cavity searches when posed no safety risk himself others, 143-145, 182a; refused let Muslims pray because there would "[n]o prayers terrorists," 154, 184a. only ones relevant contends interest origin, contravention Fifth Amendments Constitution. [FBI], direction Defendant MUELLER, thousands Arab Muslim men . part its events 11." 47, 164a. It further "[t]he holding post-September-11th highly until `cleared' approved Defendants ASHCROFT MUELLER discussions weeks after 2001." 69, 168a. Lastly, posits "each knew of, condoned, willfully maliciously agreed subject" "as policy, solely [his] and/or origin legitimate penological interest." 96, 172a-173a. pleading names "principal architect" 157a, identifies "instrumental [its] adoption, promulgation, implementation." 157a. failure show own involvement conduct. motion. Accepting court "it cannot said [is] set facts which [respondent] entitled relief against" petitioners. 136a-137a (relying Conley Gibson, 355 41, 78 99, 2 80 (1957)). Invoking collateral-order doctrine While pending, this decided Bell Atlantic Corp. Twombly, 550 544, 127 1955, 167 929 (2007), discussed standard evaluating whether survive dismiss. considered Twombly's applicability case. Acknowledging Twombly retired no-set-of-facts test relied upon Appeals' length how apply "standard assessing adequacy pleadings." F.3d, 155. concluded called "flexible `plausibility standard,' obliges pleader amplify contexts where such amplification needed render plausible." 157-158. found did present "those contexts" requiring amplification. consequence, adequate allege personal discriminatory decisions which, violated law. 174. *1945 Judge Cabranes concurred. majority's "discussion standards reflect[ed] uneasy compromise between privilege rooted need preserve effectiveness government contemplated our structure requirements Rule 8(a) Rules Civil Procedure." 178 (internal quotation marks citations omitted). nonetheless expressed concern prospect subjecting high-ranking Government officialsentitled assert charged responding "a international emergency unprecedented history American Republic"to burdens discovery basis nonspecific respondent's. 179. Reluctant vindicate member Appeals, ibid., urged address appropriate "at earliest opportunity." 178. granted certiorari, 554 ___, 128 2931, 171 863 (2008), reverse. II first subject-matter affirm disputed but hardly issue. free pretermit Subjectmatter forfeited waived should fairly doubt. Arbaugh Y H Corp., 546 500, 514, 126 1235, 163 1097 (2006) (citing Cotton, 535 625, 630, 122 1781, 152 860 (2002)). appealable doctrine. disagree. With exceptions inapplicable here, Congress has vested courts appeals "jurisdiction final district States." 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Though statute's finality requirement ensures "interlocutory appealsappeals end proceedingsare exception, rule," Johnson Jones, 515 304, 309, 115 2151, 132 238 (1995), "review prejudgment orders." Behrens Pelletier, 516 299, 305, 116 834, 133 773 (1996). Under limited district-court orders reviewable "though short judgment." narrow category "are immediately `finally determine right separable from, collateral to, rights asserted action, too important review independent cause itself require appellate consideration deferred whole adjudicated.'" (quoting Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan 337 541, 546, 69 1221, 93 1528 (1949)). decision officer's can fall class absence Mitchell Forsyth, 472 511, 530, 105 2806, 86 411 (1985). so immunitywhich shields "from liability civil damages insofar conduct violate statutory rights," Harlow Fitzgerald, *1946 457 800, 818, 102 2727, 73 396 (1982)is both "entitlement stand face litigation." Mitchell, supra, U.S., 526, 2806. Provided "turns issue law," "`conclusively determine[s]'" defendant must bear discovery; "conceptually distinct merits plaintiff's claim"; prove "effectively unreviewable 527-528 Cohen, 1221). matter, may have expanded beyond limits dictated internal logic strict application criteria out Cohen. context qualified-immunity well established; been careful say court's rejecting motion-to-dismiss stage proceeding "final decision" meaning Behrens, 307, 834. B Applying principles, we conclude hear appeal. turned rejected immunity. therefore "subject immediate appeal." says based complaint's claim, ultimate issues itself, proper subject jurisdiction." Brief 15 Brief). words, avers violation lacked pass sufficiency pleadings. Our opinions, however, make clear strictly confined. Hartman Moore, 547 250, 1695, 164 441 (2006), reviewed legal concerned elements "must win" Amendment retaliation claim. 257, n. 5, 1695. Similarly, Terms ago Wilkie Robbins, 551 537, 2588, 168 389 another employed interference property 549, 4, 2588. These cases squared argument collateralorder restricts "ultimate issu[e]" wrong excluding question establish violation. 15. Indeed, latter even questions presented Wilkie, since sufficiently isolation pleaded. sense "inextricably intertwined with," Swint Chambers County Comm'n, 514 35, 51, 1203, 131 60 "directly implicated by," Hartman, *1947 defense. counters Johnson, 238, confirms want subjectmatter That incorrect. allegation five defendants, police officers, unlawfully beat plaintiff. appealability portion of" summary judgment entered `qualified immunity' case, determine[d] only" genuine material fact three participated beating. 313, 2151. finding purposes 1291, cited proposition turning "`on law'" determining law, sits near law-fact divide. Or "factrelated" inquiry. 314, it, required consult "vast pretrial record, conflicting affidavits, depositions, materials." 316, process generally involves matters ken replicate inefficiently will arise following judgment. Finding concerns predominant, "final" turn "abstract," rather "fact-based," 317, animated absent considers disposition insufficient True, categories "factbased" "abstract" used guide defined. Here, falls class. Reviewing order, contained four corners complaint; resort record" unnecessary. And "heft" task core competency. 557, 1955. Evaluating "fact-based" problem sought avoid had, has, jurisdiction. proceed consider III 553-554, necessary discuss antitrust principles complaint. Here begin taking note discrimination Bivensproceeding theory suggests remedythis "recognized time implied private citizen's rights." Correctional Services Malesko, 534 61, 66, 515, 151 456 *1948 (2001). Because causes disfavored, reluctant extend "to any new defendants." 68, 515. also 549-550, reluctance might disposed religious discrimination. allowed equal protection component Due Process Clause Amendment, see Davis Passman, 442 228, 99 2264, 846 (1979), remedy Free Exercise Clause. declined sounding Amendment. Bush Lucas, 462 367, 103 2404, 76 648 (1983). do press argument, assume, deciding, actionable Bivens. settings apply, "federal analog suits Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 1983." 254, 2, Cf. Wilson Layne, 526 603, 609, 119 1692, 143 818 (1999). Based rules precedents establish, correctly concedes liable subordinates respondeat superior. 46 ("[I]t undisputed supervisory superior"). Monell City Social Servs., 436 658, 691, 98 2018, 56 611 (1978) (finding vicarious municipal "person" 1983); Dunlop Munroe, 7 Cranch 242, 269, 3 329 (1812) (a official's "will result neglect properly superintending discharge" subordinates' duties); Robertson Sichel, 507, 515-516, 8 1286, 203 (1888) ("A public officer agent responsible misfeasances position wrongs, nonfeasances, negligences, omissions duty, subagents servants persons him, discharge duties"). 1983 suits, each Governmentofficial defendant, through individual actions, factors vary provision Where invidious Amendments, acted purpose. Church Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. Hialeah, 508 520, 540-541, 113 2217, 124 (1993) (First Amendment); Washington Davis, 426 229, 240, 96 2040, 48 597 (1976) (Fifth Amendment). extant precedent purposeful requires "intent volition intent awareness consequences." Personnel Administrator Mass. Feeney, 256, 279, 2282, 870 (1979). decisionmaker's undertaking course "`because of,' merely `in spite [the action's] adverse effects identifiable group." follows right, *1949 implemented detention policies neutral, investigative reason purpose discriminating disagrees. argues "supervisory liability," "knowledge acquiescence use classification among detainees." 45-46. say, believes supervisor's mere knowledge subordinate's amounts violating reject argument. conception liability" inconsistent accurate stipulation accountable misdeeds agents. suit actionwhere masters answer torts servantsthe misnomer. Absent liability, official, her title notwithstanding, misconduct. overcome immunity, impose subordinate discrimination; same holds true violations arising superintendent responsibilities. IV Procedure 8(a)(2), contain "short plain statement showing relief." 929, announces "detailed allegations," demands unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. 555, 1955 Papasan Allain, 478 265, 286, 106 2932, 92 209 (1986)). offers "labels conclusions" formulaic recitation do." Nor suffice tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid "further enhancement." accepted "state plausible face." 570, facial plausibility pleads content allows draw reasonable inference alleged. 556, akin "probability requirement," asks sheer possibility unlawfully. "merely consistent with" defendant's "stops line `entitlement relief.'" (brackets Two working underlie Twombly. First, tenet accept conclusions. Threadbare recitals supported conclusory statements, suffice. (Although take *1950 bound conclusion couched allegation" omitted)). notable generous departure hyper-technical, code-pleading regime prior era, unlock doors armed nothing Second, survives Determining will, observed, context-specific reviewing judicial experience common sense. well-pleaded permit infer misconduct, allegedbut "show[n]""that Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). keeping considering choose identifying conclusions, assumption truth. conclusions provide framework allegations. When allegations, assume veracity plausibly give rise entitlement relief. illustrates two-pronged approach. There, alleging incumbent telecommunications providers agreement compete forestall competitive entry, Sherman Act, Recognizing 1 enjoins anticompetitive "effected contract, combination, conspiracy," Copperweld Independence Tube 467 752, 775, 104 2731, 81 628 (1984), plaintiffs flatly "ha[d] into combination entry. ha[d] another." 551, defendants' "parallel competition" inflate prices indicative unlawful plaintiffs' deficient 8. doing noted assertion "`legal conclusion'" and, such, Had simply credited conspiracy, stated perforce. next addressed "nub" complaintthe well-pleaded, nonconclusory parallel behaviorto gave "plausible suggestion conspiracy." 565-566, agreement, nevertheless suggest illicit accord compatible with, indeed likely explained by, lawful, unchoreographed free-market behavior. 567, conduct, dismissed. construction 8, *1951 "nudged claims" "across conceivable analysis "knew [him]" 173a-174a. "instrumental" adopting executing bare assertions, much like amount "formulaic elements" namely, 2282. true. 554-555, clear, bald ground unrealistic nonsensical. characterize express "`contract, entry,'" thought chimerical maintained. nature extravagantly fanciful nature, disentitles presumption Taken purposefully designating given explanations, perpetrated hijackers counted themselves members good standing al Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalist group. Al Qaeda headed MuslimOsama bin Ladenand composed large disciples. come surprise directing detain individuals link produce disparate, incidental impact Muslims, though target neither Arabs nor Muslims. On arrests oversaw lawful justified nondiscriminatory aliens illegally connections committed acts. "obvious alternative explanation" arrests, purposeful, *1952 infer, conclusion. discrimination, alone entitle recall challenges constitutionality initial MDC. rest ostensible "policy detainees" once categorized prevail theory, classifying post-September-11 fails do. us, labeled impermissible reasons, accuses approving "restrictive confinement" "`cleared' FBI." truth allegation, show, intimate, due All Nation's top aftermath devastating attack, keep terrorists most secure suspects could cleared activity. argue, he, motive obligations. "nudg[e]" sure, attempt certain contrasts wrongdoing extended period years, whereas here discrete wrongsfor beatingsby lower condoned wrongful part. Despite distinctions, Unlike superior bind corporate noted, unless constitutionally protected characteristic. Yet mind. His thus meet comply note, concerning serious determination C arguments none persuasive. *1953 made dispute. 37-38. incompatible Procedure. determined antitrust, interpretation 554, governs "in actions proceedings courts." expounded "all actions," applies alike. 555-556, 3, implies tempered where, "instructed cabin preserve" possible anticipation motion." 27. held, controls process. 559, ("It just shy can, groundless, weeded early management lament success supervision checking abuse modest side" citation rejection careful-case-management approach especially Government-official basic thrust litigation, "avoidance disruptive discovery." Siegert Gilley, 500 226, 236, 111 1789, 114 277 (1991) (KENNEDY, J., concurring judgment). There reasons this. If devote duties, formulation sound policies, counterproductive substantial diversion attendant participating litigation making informed proceed. Litigation, ensure exacts heavy costs terms efficiency expenditure valuable resources otherwise directed execution work Government. magnified aptly put Republic." continue defendants. quite parties proceeds, counsel participate develop misleading slanted prejudice position. Even yet orders, then, discovery. decline invitation relax *1954 promises minimally intrusive promise provides cold comfort context, impelled real concept high-level deterred detracted vigorous performance duties. discovery, cabined otherwise. finally maintains expressly allow "generally," equates allegation. 32 9). follows, says, discriminated "on Were credit statements reference context. 9(b) particularity "fraud mistake," allowing "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, person's mind [to] generally." "generally" relative term. 9, compared applicable mistake. 9 excuses party elevated standard. license evade less rigidthough still operativestrictures 5A C. Wright Miller, Practice 1301, p. 291 (3d ed. 2004) ("[A] rigid rule detailed condition undesirable because, overriding considerations pressing specificity requirement, averments mistake, `short claim' mandate 8(a). control second sentence 9(b)"). empower affix label "general allegation," expect V decide instance remand seek leave amend reversed, remanded opinion. ordered. SOUTER, whom STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER join, dissenting. uncontested (1971), individual's comes explicit concession supervisor grounds *1955 apparently rejects although bearing resolution away majority misapplies respectfully dissent cognizable concession, satisfy 8(a)(2) documents, carried "`of Owing designation center's six awaiting trial. mention fully below, very least aware (and perhaps took devising it), thereby rights.[1] day transferred unit, guards, provocation, "picked up threw wall, kicked across room." 176a being attacked medical attention care weeks. 187-188, 189a. Iqbal's staff unit unjustified body cavity searches, 136-140, 181a, verbally berated "`terrorist'" "`Muslim killer,'" 87, 170a-171a, food, 91, 171a-172a, intentionally air conditioning winter heating summer, 84, 170a. interfered attempts engage study, 153-154, 183a-184a, access counsel, 168, 171, 186a-187a. Mueller's affirmed. asked grant certiorari questions: "1. Whether cabinet-level highranking allegedly acts purportedly individual-capacity *1956 "2. personally supervisors, constructive notice officials." I. questions. about pleading; goes question, ask official" officials" fact, conceded petition "actual knowledge" exhibited "`deliberate indifference'" Farmer Brennan, 511 825, 837, 1970, 811 (1994)). Instead, (which call conclusory) misapplied construing rule. 11-24. 25-33. odd pose, never claimed theory. Be may, challenged imposing sum, raise theories notice, liability. briefing different. argued immunity; contended notice. Again conceded, "had actual assertedly `of interest' deliberately indifferent discrimination." 50; Reply 21-22. recover 46. Thus, satisfied Without acknowledging parties' asserts sua sponte scope Ante, 1947-1949. agree made; knowing amounting 557-558, deciding *1957 uncalled for. several starting it. have, critical deliberate indifference seeks knowingly acquiesced maybe acquiesced) subordinates; this, Farmer, 842, 1970 (explaining "deliberate indifference" failed act harm"). normally override party's see, e.g., International Business Machines 517 843, 855, 1793, 135 (1996) (holding "[i]t inappropriate [e]xamine benefit briefing," conceded), when, unnecessary infra, 1958-1959. indifference. full-dress require. Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 676-677, 1684, 6 1081 (1961) (Harlan, dissenting). consequently precise contours complicated divided Courts Appeals. 1957-1959. recently remarked danger "bad decisionmaking" "woefully inadequate," Pearson Callahan, 555 808, 819, 172 565 (2009), today answers all. error palpable. Finally, unfair rely briefs, denies fair chance heard majority, ignore concession. concededly superior, 1948-1949. "where servants," `supervisory liability' misnomer," "[a]bsent misconduct." Lest words narrowing liability; eliminating entirely. liable, conditions, subordinates, principle rejects. 1952 ("[P]etitioners *1958 characteristic"). dangers readiness apparent cursory analysis, rests outcomes here: "an employer employees acting employment," Restatement (Third) Agency 2.04 (2005), dichotomy false. employee employment, subordinate. See, Whitfield Melendez-Rivera, 431 14 (C.A.1 2005) (distinguishing liability); Bennett Eastpointe, 410 810, (C.A.6 (same); Richardson Goord, 347 431, 435 2003) Hall Lombardi, 996 F.2d 954, 961 (C.A.8 1993) (same). spectrum tests liability: imposed acquiesces, Monroe Twp., 50 1186, 1194 (C.A.3 1995); Woodward Worland, 977 1392, 1400 (C.A.10 1992); supervisors "`know facilitate approve condone blind eye fear what see,'" Action 365 20, (C.A.D.C. (Roberts, J.) Jones Chicago, 856 985, 992 (C.A.7 1988) (Posner, J.)); reckless subordinate, Hall, 961; grossly negligent, Lipsett University Puerto Rico, 864 881, 902 1988). am unsure be, devise one. Neither remarkable foray authorized, "conclusory" "not true." 1951. explain unsound, understanding standards, indifference, presumably dismissed.[2] Given satisfies admit 50. *1959 (FBI) "arrested men," 164a, many interest,'" 48, 50, cases, Iqbal's, "because detainees, evidence detainees' supporting activity," 49. architect practices challenged," "was instrumental implementation 11. [Iqbal] alleges, minimum, out. Actually, Muller affirmatively create policy. were, least, argue fail "plausibility standard" They contend implausible "tend involved specific lower-level down bureaucratic chain command." 28. response bespeaks fundamental misunderstanding enquiry demands. probably contrary, skeptical be. (even doubtful fact)"); strikes savvy judge proof improbable"); Neitzke Williams, 319, 327, 109 1827, 338 (1989) ("Rule 12(b)(6) countenance dismissals judge's disbelief allegations"). sole exception lies fantastic defy reality know it: little green men, recent trip Pluto, experiences travel. whether, assuming plausible. is, "allege facts" "suggestive illegal conduct." 564, faced Act difficulty "consistent wide swath rational business strategy unilaterally prompted perceptions market." *1960 sort circumstance, "[a]n naked complaint: gets close stating enhancement stops contrast, admission, action. contains "enough understand disagree "plausibility" discards above regard conclusory, left 11," 2001," ante, think saying "sought 1952, produced Muslims," 1951-1952. selected alone, significant, linking subordinates. ¶10, (Ashcroft policy); (Mueller 172a-173a interest"). "bare assertions" "much `formulaic elements' claim" 1951 1955). fallacy position, looking assertions isolation. Chief FBI's Terrorism Operations Section Agent Charge Field Iqbal, *1961 47-53, 164a-165a. Viewed light subsidiary singled thing. practice undefined; "they particular, discrete, amorphous ill-defined violation; helped described. Taking whole, gives "`fair rests.'" (1957) (omission original)). aside, selects nonconclusory. example, takes 168a; makes points: (1) (2) conditions. If, why deems "`high 48-50, agreed" 172a. my lights, principled disregard dissent. BREYER, SOUTER join write separately point believe unwarranted interfering Government." 1953. find justification all, weapons interference. Circuit explained, defense, managing "mindful defense," ways diminish 158 (2007). *1962 related higher ibid. briefs convincing case-management tools inadequate, either reason, independently SOUTER's opinion, NOTES [1] detainee, punishment adjudication guilt charges. Wolfish, 535, 1861, 447 [2] mistaken, somehow outcome determinative, previously see. 1957, (apparently dispositive)

Category: 8