October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1358
Can federal officials face Bivens suits for post-9/11 detention policies?
Plaintiffs seek damages for prolonged solitary confinement. Officials claim qualified immunity and prior precedent bar the claims.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Gershengorn argued Iqbal forecloses the plaintiffs' core theory.
Meeropol warned that the theory allows indefinite solitary confinement.
Lamken focused his argument on qualified immunity defenses.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-50 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 52-16 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 52-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 44-30 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 44-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-52 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 8-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 8-8
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of Bivens remedies. It also examines qualified immunity defenses. The dispute centers on post-9/11 detention practices.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 18, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Officials want dismissal based on qualified immunity.
Plaintiffs want damages for prolonged solitary confinement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
What each side says
Officials argue Iqbal forecloses the core liability theory.
Plaintiffs argue officials violated constitutional rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
What the justices asked
Roberts asked if habeas corpus offers a remedy.
Breyer questioned the duration of the detention period.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-50 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 52-16 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 52-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 44-30 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 44-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-52 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 8-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 8-8
Why it matters
The outcome defines limits on federal official liability. It shapes future remedies for detention policy disputes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 50-50 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 50-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 48-48 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 48-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 52-16 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 52-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 26-38 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 26-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 44-30 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 44-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-10 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 50-52 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 50-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 8-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 8-8
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 22-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 48-16 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 48-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 20-50 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 20-50
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.