Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd facts for kids

Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd was an important U.S. Supreme Court case in 2011. It was a legal case filed in federal court. The case argued that holding Muslim-Americans after the September 11 attacks was against the U.S. Constitution.

The Story Behind the Case

A young man named Lavoni T. Kidd was a talented football player at the University of Idaho. He was an American citizen. While in college, Kidd became a Muslim and changed his name to Abudulla al-Kidd.

In 2003, police arrested Al-Kidd as he was getting on a flight to Saudi Arabia. He had planned to study there. He was held for 15 nights under a federal material witness statute. This is a law that allows police to hold people who might need to speak in court. Al-Kidd was supposed to testify in the court case of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen.

The head of the FBI, Robert S. Mueller, even told Congress that al-Kidd's arrest was a "success." However, al-Kidd was never accused of a crime. He was also never called to speak in court. He was later set free.

Al-Kidd later went to court himself. He sued John Ashcroft, who was the top lawyer for the U.S. government from 2001 to 2005. Al-Kidd said he was strip-searched and put in shackles. He also said he was questioned without his lawyer present. He felt he was treated like a terrorist. Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union helped al-Kidd. They said he was one of about 70 Muslim men treated this way.

Ashcroft argued that he had "absolute immunity" from such lawsuits. This meant he believed he could not be sued for actions he took as Attorney General. Ashcroft also claimed "qualified immunity." This protects officials from lawsuits unless they clearly broke someone's constitutional rights.

In 2009, a court called the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that Ashcroft could be sued. They said he could be held responsible for wrongly holding al-Kidd. On October 18, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Ashcroft's appeal.

Supreme Court's Decision

On May 31, 2011, the Supreme Court made its decision. They ruled against al-Kidd with an 8-0 vote. Usually, there are nine Supreme Court Justices. But Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the al-Kidd case.

To show that Ashcroft could be sued, al-Kidd's lawyers had to show very strong evidence. They needed to prove that Ashcroft was directly involved in holding al-Kidd. Or, they had to prove he knew what was happening to al-Kidd. The Court decided that al-Kidd's lawyers had not proven these things. The Justices thought that al-Kidd's detention was mostly handled by people less powerful than Ashcroft.

All eight Supreme Court Justices agreed that the lower court's decision should be overturned. However, the Justices came to this decision for different reasons.

Why the Court Ruled Against Al-Kidd

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the main opinion for the Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito agreed with him. Scalia wrote that a judge had issued a valid arrest warrant for al-Kidd. This warrant was based on specific information about him. Al-Kidd was not arrested as part of a general effort to round up many Muslims. He was arrested because he was specifically suspected.

In his opinion, Scalia disagreed with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They disagreed about what kind of "specific reason" is needed to arrest someone. Scalia wrote that a person does not need to be suspected of "doing something wrong." They just need to be suspected. Scalia found that Ashcroft was protected from any possible lawsuits for ordering these arrests. He wrote that an arrest and holding of a material witness, done correctly with a valid warrant, cannot be challenged just because someone claims the arresting authority had a bad reason.

Other Judges' Opinions

Justice Kennedy wrote a separate opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor agreed with part of his opinion. He also wrote that al-Kidd's lawsuit should be dismissed.

In another part of his opinion, Kennedy wrote alone. He shared his worry that the Attorney General should not be personally sued. This is especially true if lower courts in some parts of the U.S. have simply made legal decisions that go against his policies.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote that it was "uncertain" how powerful the Material Witness Statute really was. For example, she questioned if a "law-abiding citizen" who was not suspected of wrongdoing could be jailed. This might happen if they saw a crime just before a planned trip abroad. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor were also worried about how al-Kidd was treated in jail. The Court did allow al-Kidd to sue his jailers for mistreating him.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, wrote that the Court did not need to think about big Constitutional questions to decide this case.