Posted on 06/20/2017 4:59:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
A busy Supreme Court on Monday ruled, in a vote of 4-2, that former September 11 detainees do not have the right to sue government officials for money damages.
This is an issue for Congress, not the judiciary, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued in the court’s opinion. Furthermore, he said, the Second Circuit “erred” in allowing respondents’ detention policy claims to move forward under the context of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, which determined that federal officers would need to pay damages to compensate individuals who were subjected to unconstitutional conditions. Expanding Bivens is a “disfavored” judicial activity, Kennedy noted.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the public sent 96,000 tips to the FBI regarding what they believed was suspicious behavior. The Court notes that while many of these were legitimate, others were the effect of a "fear of Arabs and Muslims." The agency interviewed 1,000 people with suspected links to the attacks, discovering that many of those interviewees were in the U.S. illegally. As such, these individuals were arrested and detained. If they were determined not to be connected to 9/11, he or she was treated by the authorities just as an illegal alien at the border. Eighty-four “aliens” were detained, however, after authorities had reason to believe they were connected to the terror attack. A group of detainees held in a Brooklyn jail filed a lawsuit against federal officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel for the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election.
In the opinion, the justices do note that some prisoners were often subject to “harsh conditions.” They allowed one suit to continue against the warden at the Metropolitan Detention Center, over allegations of physical and mental abuse, including slamming prisoners into walls.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch were not eligible to rule in the case. Justice Stephen Breyer issued the dissent, stating, in part, “History warns of the risk to liberty in times of national crisis."
It matters to me he’s a pandering, legacy-seeking hypocrite
They never should have been allowed to sue the government. They had no “rights” as they were here illegally.
An appointee by the Seditious Muslim Bathhouse Boy or by the Felon, Boss Pantsuit, would have tipped the scales towards allowing Musloid terrorists to sue the United States.
Wrong, one other Justice concurred on his disent. Forgot who and you can find it by actually reading the decision.
No, it is hardly the first thing a journalist following this case would consider newsworthy.
Scotusblog which reports on the court noted in their article on the case that
“In an unusual twist, only six of the nine justices participated in today’s decision. Both Justice Sonia Sotomayor – who was involved in the case when she sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit – and Justice Elena Kagan – who was involved in the case when she served as the U.S. solicitor general – sat out the oral argument; the court’s newest justice, Justice Neil Gorsuch, had not yet joined the bench (or even been nominated) when the case was argued in mid-January of this year.”
Before expecting others to do you homework try looking for the answer yourself in reputable places on the web.
they need to deport every one of them
LoL!
Why are they even here, shouldn’t they be in Guantanamo Bay?
It’s most likely because they weren’t in the judicial system on 9/11/2001
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.