absolute immunity

Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd

Issues

1. Does the former Attorney General have either absolute or qualified immunity when making the determination of whether to apply for a material witness arrant?

2. Does the person seeking a material witness warrant have to actually intend to obtain further testimony from the subject of the warrant?

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Respondent Abdullah al-Kidd as a material witness in a terrorism case. Al-Kidd sued the former United States Attorney General, Petitioner John Ashcroft, alleging that he used the material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, as a pretext to hold and investigate al-Kidd as a terrorism suspect in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Ashcroft asserted absolute immunity, claiming that the use of a material arrest warrant constituted a prosecutorial function. He also claimed qualified immunity, on the grounds that there was no established constitutional violation for using a material arrest warrant at the time of the arrest. Al-Kidd contends that Ashcroft is not entitled to either form of immunity because the arrest had an investigative function and no reasonable official could believe that a material witness warrant would authorize the arrest of a suspect without any intent to use the suspect as a witness. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Ashcroft was entitled to neither absolute nor qualified immunity. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the protection available to government officials by resolving the issue of when the government can use material witness warrants in making arrests.

 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in denying petitioner absolute immunity from the pretext claim.

2. Whether the court of appeals erred in denying petitioner qualified immunity from the pretext claim based on the conclusions that (a) the Fourth Amendment prohibits an officer from executing a valid material witness warrant with the subjective intent of conducting further investigation or preventively detaining the subject; and (b) this Fourth Amendment rule was clearly established at the time of respondent's arrest.

Abdullah Al-Kidd is a United States citizen. See Brief for Respondent, Abdullah Al-Kidd at 1. After September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) began investigating various terrorist activities. See Brief for Petitioner, John Ashcroft at 3.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.

Additional Resources

 The Washington Post, Robert Barnes: Supreme Court to Decide whether Ashcroft can be Sued by Detained Citizen (Oct. 18, 2010)

· The New York Times, Adam Liptak: Justices to Hear Appeal over Liability for Detention (Oct. 18, 2010)

Submit for publication
0

defamation

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). State common law and statutory law governs defamation actions, and each state varies in their standards for defamation and potential damages.

qualified immunity

Trump v. Vance

Issues

Does a sitting president enjoy absolute immunity from a grand-jury subpoena seeking 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial records, even if the subpoena was served on his accounting firm, and not himself?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a grand-jury subpoena served on the president’s accounting firm that demands 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial records comports with the Constitution. President Trump argues that Article II renders the president categorically immune to any criminal process while in office. This is especially so here, President Trump argues, where the Supremacy Clause asserts the primacy of federal interests over those of state courts, and where the criminal nature of the subpoena imposes a stigma. Vance counters that Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not apply where the particular legal process does not implicate or impinge on the president’s official conduct. Vance points to the Court’s centuries-long practice of enforcing presidential subpoenas. The outcome of this case will significantly affect local officials’ ability to launch investigations into matters concerning sitting presidents, as well as presidents’ immunity from grand jury investigations while in office.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

In 2018, the District Attorney of the County of New York (“District Attorney”) initiated a grand jury investigation into “whether several individuals and entities have committed criminal violations of New York law.” Trump v.

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Van de Kamp v. Goldstein

Issues

Whether supervising prosecutors can claim absolute immunity from civil law suits that allege their failure to establish policies guaranteeing criminal defendants’ constitutional rights, or whether such actions are “administrative” in nature and therefore only eligible for qualified immunity.

 

After being wrongfully convicted of murder based on the perjury of a jailhouse informant, Thomas Lee Goldstein brought a Section 1983 suit against John Van de Kamp and Curt Livesay, the chief prosecutors at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.  Goldstein alleges that the prosecutors failed to establish a system to share information about benefits given to informants, with the result that the prosecutor who tried Goldstein did not have information on the informant and consequently did not inform Goldstein, as is constitutionally required.  Van de Kamp and Livesay claimed absolute immunity from civil suit, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Imbler v. Pachtman.  The Ninth Circuit, however, held that since their alleged failures were administrative, and not prosecutorial in nature, Van de Kamp and Livesay were not entitled to absolute immunity.  In further defining the boundaries of absolute immunity, the Supreme Court’s decision will affect the amount of protection from personal liability prosecutors can have at all levels of government, as well as affect the potential remedies available to criminal defendants who were wrongfully convicted based on prosecutorial misconduct.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1) Where absolute immunity shields an individual prosecutor’s decisions regarding the disclosure of informant information in compliance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) made in the course of preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or trial in any individual prosecution, may a plaintiff circumvent that immunity by suing one or more supervising prosecutors for purportedly improperly training, supervising, or setting policy with regard to the disclosure of such informant information for all cases prosecuted by his or her agency?

2) Are the decisions of a supervising prosecutor as chief advocate in directing policy concerning, and overseeing training and supervision of, individual prosecutors’ compliance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) in the course of preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or trial for all cases prosecuted by his or her agency, actions which are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” and hence shielded from liability under Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)?

Thomas Lee Goldstein, a twenty-five-year-old engineering student and Marine Corps veteran, was arrested in 1979 for a Long Beach, CA shooting.  See Brief for Respondent at 2.  He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison based on the testimony of an eyewitness (who later admitted that he only identified Goldstein as the murderer because of police intimidation), and the testimony of a jailhouse informant by the name of Eddie Fink, who claimed that Gold

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to absolute immunity