Parties and Case Citation: ASHCROFT (petitioner) v. AL-KIDD (defendant-arrestee), 131 S.Ct. 2074 (2011)

Facts of the case: Native-born U.S. citizen, Abdullah Al-Kidd was detained as a material-witness by the FBI in March of 2003 as he prepared to board a plane destined for Saudi Arabia. Federal officials at the time believed that Al-Kidd had crucial information regarding the prosecution of another individual that would have been lost if he was allowed to board the plane. Al-Kidd was in custody for 16 days and later remained on supervised release until the trial had concluded having never been called as a witness.

Prior Proceedings: Al-Kidd filed a Bivens action against former Attorney General, John Ashcroft at the U.S. District Court, District …show more content…
Arguments of Objectives of the Parties:
Petitioner: The petitioner claims that he enjoys absolute and qualified immunity as a federal official and that there was no violation of constitutional rights for the detention of an individual for whom there was no sufficient evidence to charge with a crime of supporting terrorism.
Respondent: The respondent does not contest his detention should he had been asked to appear as a witness and provide testimony, but alleges that he was detained as a suspected criminal.

Holding Rule of Law: The Supreme Court held that the former Attorney General did not violate established law and is entitled to immunity, and that there was no violation of constitutional rights as the detention was valid pursuant to a validly obtained warrant.

Rationale: The Supreme Court stated: “Here, the asserted constitutional right falls far short of that threshold. At the time of al-Kidd's arrest, not a single judicial opinion had held that pretext could render an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a material-witness warrant unconstitutional.” (Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd,