John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, et al. v. Javaid Iqbal et al.
The Court held that a plaintiff in a civil law case must plead a claim in a "plausible" manner.
556 U.S. 662 · No. 07-1015 · 2008 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 18, 2009 · argued Dec 10, 2008
Judicial power · No merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of a substantial or properly presented federal question, or a nonsuit
Landmark
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, et al. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a plaintiff in a civil law case must plead a claim in a "plausible" manner. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs need to meet to commence a lawsuit. Further, the Court held that government officials are not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against Muslim men detained after the September 11 attacks. The decision also "transformed civil litigation in the federal courts" by making it significantly easier for courts to dismiss individuals' suits.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2008 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
David SouterWrote a dissent
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, et al.Attorney general of the United States, or his office
- Respondent
- Javaid Iqbal et al.Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure, or relevant rules of a circuit court Judicial Code, and admiralty rules
- Kind of law
- Court Rules
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 18, 2009DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. John D. Ashcroft, Former Attorney General, et al. won.
- Dec 10, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
13 other argued cases since 1946 on no merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of a substantial or properly presented federal question, or a nonsuit, newest first.
- Mark H. Oring v. State Bar of California488 U.S. 590Jan 23, 1989 · 488 U.S. 590Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- McNamara, Edward v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services488 U.S. 152Dec 6, 1988 · 488 U.S. 152Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Vincent v. Texas449 U.S. 199Dec 9, 1980 · 449 U.S. 199Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Pearson v. Dodd et al.429 U.S. 396Jan 12, 1977 · 429 U.S. 396Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Mattiello v. Connecticut.395 U.S. 209May 26, 1969 · 395 U.S. 209Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority369 U.S. 147Mar 19, 1962 · 369 U.S. 147Judicial power7–18–1 band
- Newsom v. Smyth, Superintendent, Virginia State Penitentiary365 U.S. 604Mar 27, 1961 · 365 U.S. 604Judicial power6–36–3 band
- Ganger et al. v. City of Miami.359 U.S. 64Mar 9, 1959 · 359 U.S. 64Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Nelson et al. v. Tennessee.355 U.S. 271Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 271Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Walton v. California.350 U.S. 868Oct 24, 1955 · 350 U.S. 868Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Palmer Oil Corp. et al. v. Amerada Petroleum Corp. et al.343 U.S. 390May 12, 1952 · 343 U.S. 390Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Northwestern Public Service Co.341 U.S. 246May 7, 1951 · 341 U.S. 246Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. v. United States339 U.S. 157Mar 27, 1950 · 339 U.S. 157Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.