eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)

What are the key differences between ZIGLAR and ABBASI, and how does their approach to [insert relevant aspect of the business/industry] differ?

Ziglar v.

Abbasi is a Supreme Court case from 2017 that determined non-US citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high-level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement.

The case was consolidated with Hastey v.

Abbasi and Ashcroft v.

Abbasi, and argued on January 18, 2017.

The Supreme Court held that Bivens remedies apply only to unreasonable searches and seizures by federal agents, rather than civil rights claims based on the conditions of confinement, which may be brought only against state officials.

The case began over thirteen years ago when eight Arab and Muslim noncitizens brought a claim against high-ranking federal officials involved in the government's investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

In its 1971 decision in Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Supreme Court held that a federal agent who commits an unconstitutional search and seizure can be held liable in damages through a right of action implied under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ziglar v.

Abbasi limited the scope of Bivens remedies and informs the decision whether an implied damages remedy should be recognized in similar cases.

Considering the relevant special factors in the Ziglar v.

Abbasi case, a Bivens type remedy should not be extended to the "detention policy claims," the allegations that the executive officials and wardens violated.

The Ziglar v.

Abbasi case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding the government's investigation and detention of terrorism suspects in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ziglar v.

Abbasi clarified the limits of Bivens remedies and the circumstances under which federal officials can be held liable for civil rights violations.

The Ziglar v.

Abbasi case is significant because it involved high-ranking federal officials, including the former Attorney General, and dealt with the government's response to a national tragedy.

The case also raised questions about the constitutional limits on the government's power to detain and investigate terrorism suspects, and the extent to which individuals can seek redress for alleged civil rights violations.

The Ziglar v.

Abbasi case is an important reminder of the legal and policy challenges surrounding national security and civil liberties in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

eDiscovery, legal research and legal memo creation - ready to be sent to your counterparty? Get it done in a heartbeat with AI. (Get started for free)

Related

Sources