Citation network
Ashcroft Vs. Iqbal
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 2009
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Ashcroft V. IqbalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
former Attorney General, and petitioner Mueller, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). See Bivens v. SixSearch
-
court assumed without discussion that it had jurisdiction and focused on the standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySearch
-
s First Amendment claim is actionable in a Bivens action, see Hartman v. MooreSearch
-
suits, see, e.g., Monell v. NewSearch
-
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Ashcroft v. IqbalSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Ashcroft V. IqbalSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-1015 John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, Et Al., Petitioners V. JavaidSearch
-
him on charges of fraud in relation to identification documents and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Iqbal v. HastySearch
-
federal corrections officers. See Bivens v. SixSearch
-
relying on Conley v. GibsonSearch
-
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While that appeal was pending, this Court decided Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySearch
-
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be forfeited or waived and should be considered when fairly in doubt. Arbaugh v. Y &Search
-
H Corp. , 546 U. S. 500 , 514 (2006) (citing United States v. CottonSearch
-
Johnson v. JonesSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Cohen v. BeneficialSearch
-
Our opinions, however, make clear that appellate jurisdiction is not so strictly confined. In Hartman v. MooreSearch
-
a First Amendment retaliation claim. Id., at 257, n. 5. Similarly, two Terms ago in Wilkie v. RobbinsSearch
-
Swint v. ChambersSearch
-
to redress a violation of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, see Davis v. PassmanSearch
-
Free Exercise Clause. Indeed, we have declined to extend Bivens to a claim sounding in the First Amendment. Bush v. LucasSearch
-
Hartman , 547 U. S., at 254, n. 2. Cf. Wilson v. LayneSearch
-
See Monell v. NewSearch
-
see also Dunlop v. MunroeSearch
-
plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant acted with discriminatory purpose. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. HialeahSearch
-
Washington v. DavisSearch
-
it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id ., at 555 (citing Papasan v. AllainSearch
-
Copperweld Corp. v. IndependenceSearch
-
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Ashcroft v. IqbalSearch
-
Souter, J., Dissenting Ashcroft V. IqbalSearch
-
Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. This case is here on the uncontested assumption that Bivens v. SixSearch
-
liability under Bivens . The majority then misapplies the pleading standard under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySearch
-
documents, and was placed in pretrial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. Iqbal v. HastySearch
-
to that discrimination. Pet. for Cert. 29 (quoting Farmer v. BrennanSearch
-
s concession, see, e.g. , United States v. InternationalSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial