Abdullah al-Kidd v. United States, et al.
What's at Stake
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the arrest of criminal suspects without probable cause to believe they have committed a crime. Yet after 9/11, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and the U.S. Department of Justice implemented a policy of misusing the federal 鈥渕aterial witness鈥� statute to detain Muslim men for investigative purposes without probable cause to believe that they鈥檇 committed any crime. Pursuant to this policy, our client, Abdullah al-Kidd, a Kansas-born U.S. citizen and former football player at the University of Idaho, was arrested on a material witness warrant in 2003 and imprisoned without charges for 16 days, ostensibly because the government wanted his testimony in someone else鈥檚 criminal case. He was never called to testify and never criminally charged.
Summary
In 2005, the 老澳门开奖结果 filed a lawsuit against the United States, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the two FBI agents who procured Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 arrest warrant, and the wardens of the correctional facilities where Mr. al-Kidd was imprisoned, seeking damages for his unconstitutional detention and the inhumane conditions in which he was held.
As to former Attorney General Ashcroft, both the district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our claims could proceed, but in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Ashcroft could not be held liable under the Fourth Amendment for the pretextual use of the material witness statute, even assuming that our allegations are true. However, four out of the eight Justices considering the case (Justice Kagan was recused) agreed that there were serious questions about 鈥渨hether the Government鈥檚 use of the Material Witness Statute in [Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚] case was lawful.鈥�
On remand, in 2012, the district court issued two landmark rulings on Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 claims against the remaining defendants, the FBI agents and the United States. The district court ruled that the FBI agent who sought Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 arrest violated the Fourth Amendment by recklessly misleading the court. The district court also ruled that the United States was liable for false imprisonment, and that Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 鈥渁buse of process鈥� claim鈥攈is claim that the government had misused the material witness statute 鈥渇or a purpose other than to secure testimony鈥濃�攄eserves a trial.
The FBI agent initially appealed the district court鈥檚 decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but after argument, in early 2015, we reached a settlement with the defendants and resolved all the remaining claims.
Case Timeline
March 15, 2005
The 老澳门开奖结果 files suit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the United States, individual FBI agents, and the wardens of the correctional facilities in which Mr. al-Kidd was held, seeking damages for Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 unconstitutional detention and the inhumane conditions in which he was held.
September 2006
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho denies in major part the individual defendants鈥� motions to dismiss, holding that all but one of Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 claims, including his claims against Ashcroft, may go forward.
March 2008
The action against the warden of the federal Oklahoma facility is settled for monetary relief.
August 2008
The action against the Virginia warden is settled for monetary relief and institutional reforms by the Alexandria jail.
August 2009
The action against the Idaho warden is settled for monetary relief and institutional reforms by the Ada County Jail.
September 2009
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rules that Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 claim that Ashcroft bears responsibility for his wrongful detention may go forward.
October 2009
Ashcroft files a petition asking all of the judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear his appeal.
March 2010
9th Circuit denies Ashcroft鈥檚 request for full court review.
October 2010
Supreme Court agrees to hear Ashcroft鈥檚 appeal of the case.
March 2011
Supreme Court hears arguments in al-Kidd v. Ashcroft.
May 2011
Supreme Court reverses the 9th Circuit鈥檚 decision, holding that Ashcroft cannot be held liable under the Fourth Amendment for Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 pretextual detention. However, four out of the eight Justices considering the case (Justice Kagan was recused) agreed that there were serious questions about 鈥渨hether the Government鈥檚 use of the Material Witness Statute in [Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚] case was lawful.鈥� The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings as to the remaining defendants.
September 2012
After discovery, all parties moved for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment to Mr. al-Kidd on most of his claims. In particular, the district court ruled that the FBI agent who sought Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 arrest violated the Fourth Amendment by recklessly misleading the court. The district court also ruled that the United States was liable for false imprisonment, and that Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 abuse of process claim deserves a trial.
November 2012
The FBI agent who sought Mr. al-Kidd鈥檚 arrest filed an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit.
May 2014
The Ninth Circuit hears arguments in al-Kidd v. United States et al.
January 2015
The parties reach a settlement, resolving all the pending claims.
Legal Documents
-
12/20/2010
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amicus Curiae of William P. Barr, et al.
Date Filed: 12/20/2010
-
12/19/2014
Abdullah al-Kidd v. United States, et al. - Stipulation of Settlement
Date Filed: 12/19/2014
-
12/13/2013
Abdullah al-Kidd v. United States, et al. - Reply Brief for Defendant Michael Gneckow
Date Filed: 12/13/2013
-
12/13/2010
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Joint Appendix
Date Filed: 12/13/2010
-
12/13/2010
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief of Petitioner John D. Ashcroft
Date Filed: 12/13/2010
-
12/13/2010
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amicus Curiae of Wesley Macneil Oliver
Date Filed: 12/13/2010
-
11/18/2005
Al-Kidd v. Gonzales - First Amended Complaint
Date Filed: 11/18/2005
-
10/30/2013
Abdullah al-Kidd v. United States, et al. - Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee Abdullah Al-Kidd
Date Filed: 10/30/2013
-
09/27/2012
Abdullah Al-Kidd v. John Ashcroft, et al. - FTCA Opinion
Date Filed: 09/27/2012
-
09/27/2012
Abdullah Al-Kidd v. John Ashcroft, et al. - Bivens Opinion
Date Filed: 09/27/2012
-
09/27/2006
al-Kidd v. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, et al. - Order
Date Filed: 09/27/2006
-
09/18/2006
al-Kidd v. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, et al. - Decision
Date Filed: 09/18/2006
-
09/18/2006
al-Kidd v. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, et al. - Complaint
Date Filed: 09/18/2006
-
09/17/2010
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief in Opposition
Date Filed: 09/17/2010
-
09/04/2009
al-Kidd v. John Ashcroft, et al. - Opinion
Date Filed: 09/04/2009
-
08/01/2013
Abdullah al-Kidd v. United States, et al. - Appellant Brief for Defendant Michael Gneckow
Date Filed: 08/01/2013
-
07/16/2010
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Date Filed: 07/16/2010
-
06/13/2007
al-Kidd v. John Ashcroft, et al. - Amicus Brief From Former Federal Prosecutors In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee
Date Filed: 06/13/2007
-
03/18/2010
Abdullah al-Kidd v. John Ashcroft, et al. - Order Denying Petition For Rehearing En Banc
Date Filed: 03/18/2010
-
01/28/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amicus Curiae of the Constitution Project
Date Filed: 01/28/2011
-
01/28/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amici Curiae of Legal History and Criminal Procedure law Professors
Date Filed: 01/28/2011
-
01/28/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amici Curiae of Legal Scholars
Date Filed: 01/28/2011
-
01/28/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amicus Curiae of Center for Justice and Accountability
Date Filed: 01/28/2011
-
01/28/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amicus Curiae of Former Federal Prosecutors
Date Filed: 01/28/2011
-
01/28/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief Amici Curiae of Human Rights Watch, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Date Filed: 01/28/2011
-
01/21/2011
Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd - Brief of Respondent Abdullah Al-Kidd
Date Filed: 01/21/2011
Press Releases
老澳门开奖结果 Argues That Ashcroft Can Be Held Accountable For Wrongful Detention
Idaho Judge Rules That Government Cannot Use Material Witness Statute to Detain People As Suspects