al-Kidd v. Ashcroft’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.3d 949 · 2009
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 13 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (§ 120005 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 18 U.S.C. § 3144 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 401 · 19 U.S.C. § 1581 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) for setting in motion a series of acts by others, or knowingly refusing to terminate a series of acts by others, which they knew or reasonably should have known would cause others to inflict constitutional injury; (2) for culpable action or inaction in training, supervision, or control of subordinates; (3) for acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation by subordinates; or (4) for conduct that shows a “reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In conducting qualified immunity analysis ... courts do not merely ask whether, taking the plaintiffs allegations as true, the plaintiffs clearly established rights were violated. Rather, courts must consider as well whether each defendant’s alleged conduct violated the plaintiffs clearly established rights. For instance, an allegation that Defendant A violated a plaintiffs clearly established rights does nothing to overcome Defendant B’s assertion of qualified immunity, absent some allegation that Defendant B was responsible for Defendant A’s conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“1. At a press briefing, Ashcroft stated that the government was taking steps “to enhance [its] ability to protect the United States from the threat of terrorist aliens” and that “[a]ggressive detention of lawbreakers and material witnesses is vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks.” 2. In DOJ memoranda, Ashcroft stressed the need “to use ... aggressive arrest and detention tactics in the war on terror” and to use “every available law enforcement tool” to arrest persons who “participate in, or lend support to, terrorist activities.” 3. A DOJ document entitled “Maintaining Custody of Terrorism Suspects ” stated that “[i]f a person is legally present in this country, the person may be held only if federal or local law enforcement is pursuing criminal charges against him or pursuant to a material witness warrant.” 4. Michael Chertoff, who was head of the DOJ’s Criminal Division in the years immediately following the 9/11 attacks, stated of the material witness statute, “[i]t’s an important investigative tool in the war on terrorism .... Bear in mind that you get not only testimony — you get fingerprints, you get hair samples — so there’s all kinds of evidence you can get from a witness.” 5.Then White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, stated that: “In any case where it appears that a U.S. citizen captured within the United States may be an al Qaeda operative and thus may qualify as an enemy combatant, information on the individual is developed and numerous options ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.