ASHCROFT V. KIDD1
John D. ASHCROFT,
v.
Abdullah AL–KIDD
CASE BRIEF
By
Name of student
Parties and Case Citation:Ashcroft v. Kidd,563 U.S. 131 S.Ct. 2074, (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011)
Facts of the Case:In March 2003, American citizen Abdullah al-Kidd was arrested at Dulles International Airport and interrogated by federal agents. A material witness warrant for the arrest has been obtained by officers two days prior, for the purpose of securing ‘crucial’ information for Sami Omar al-Hussayen’s prosecution. Al-Kidd was transferred to the federal custody for two weeks, where he was held in high-security cells. He was controlled bysupervised releasefor 13 months until the trial ofSami Omar Al-Hussayen, however he was never called as a witness.
Al-Kidd filed a Bivens action (Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 1971) to challenge his detainment constitutionality, alleging against U.S. Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft. In the aftermath, Ashcroft filed a motion to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity.
Prior Proceedings: In 2006 the case was heard by The US District Court for the District of Idaho which denied defendant's motion to dismiss. The case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where certiorari was granted and the Court hold that Ashcroft could not claim qualified or absolute immunity because the Fourth Amendment prohibits prior arrests.In October 2010, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Ashcroft's appeal.
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: The Court tackled whether an al-Kidd`s detention is constitutional and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and whether the actions of federal officers could be justified. Do al-Kidd’s allegations fall under two limited exceptions to the Fourth Amendment principle — ‘subjective intent is relevant in special needs’(Ashcroft v. Kidd, 2011) and ‘administrative-search cases’(Ashcroft v. Kidd, 2011).
Arguments or Objectives of the Parties:
Petitioner: The petitioner argued that Ashcroft empowered federal officials to detain terrorism suspects using the federal Material Witness Statute. The petitioner contends that using the warrant for his detention is not reasonableness and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Respondent:The respondent argued that Ashcroft was acting within his duties as US Attorney General, therefore he has absolute immunity. On second thought, the respondent hasqualified immunity, preventing him unless he does not violate the law, which was clearly established at the time of the violation. Another argument is that warrant is not needed where the seizure is justified by ‘special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement’.
Holdings: The Supreme Court held that Ashcroft, having a qualified immunity, did not violate the established law and there was not Fourth Amendment violation due to individualized suspicion which was the base for the arrest.
Concurrence:
Justice Kennedy argued that he Court did not resolve the issue of the legal use of the Material Witness Statute by officials. Also, he highlighted that the status of Attorney General determines responsibilities in many jurisdictions, therefore, this fact is relevant in identifying what is ‘clearly established’ law.
Justice Ginsburgobjected the al-Kidd`s argument about Fourth Amendment, containing many misrepresentations, therefore, she questions the Court`s opening assumption concerning valid witness warrant.
Justice Sotomayor did not join the majority opinion and alleged that the question of constitutionality is unnecessarily resolved and does not have an effect on the outcome.
Correlation to the SLU Core Value of Integrity: In this case, the US Supreme Court correctly settled that Ashcroft was entitled to qualified immunity. However, the Court did not provide any conclusion on the constitutional use of material arrest warrants to detain persons suspected of crimes, following the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, The Court should have instead of judicial caution, waiting until it could appeal the constitutionality of the Material Witness Statute, before ruining one of the few major limitations on its use.
References
Ashcroft v. Kidd, 563 U.S. (2011)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. (1971)