MENU

Terrorism

Ziglar v. Abbasi Decided - Are Government Officials Liable for Damages?

International & National Security Law Teleforum Friday, June 30, 03:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the in the District Court.

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit.

The main question the Supreme Court answered was whether these high-level government officials could be sued for damages under the Bivens precedent. The precedent, created in a 1971 case involving the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, created an implied cause of action for any person whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated by federal officials. On Monday, June 19 the Supreme Court refused to extend the Bivens precedent to the petitioners, reversing the decision by the Second Circuit and remanding the case.

David Rivkin of Baker Hostelter will join us to discuss the opinion and its significance.

Featuring:

  • David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP 

Travel Moratorium Executive Order - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
David J. Bier, Andrew C. McCarthy, Shireen Qudosi March 01, 2017

On January 21, President Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.

David Bier of CATO and Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, who have both written on the topic (see their pieces here and here respectively), joined activist Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters with America Matters, to discuss the legality of the executive order in the second episode of our Executive Orders Teleforum Series.

Featuring:

  • Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
  • David J. Bier, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity 
  • Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters, America Matters 

Will International Law Matter to the Trump Administration? - Event Audio/Video

International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears
John B. Bellinger, III, Rosa Brooks, David Stewart January 27, 2017

The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a half-day conference on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. This panel will feature a lively discussion between leading international lawyers the Hon. John Bellinger and Associate Dean and Professor Rosa Brooks about whether international law will matter to the new administration. The luncheon panel will be moderated by Professor David Stewart.

This panel was part of the conference on International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears held on January 23, 2017, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC.

Luncheon Panel: Will International Law Matter to the Trump Administration?
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

  • Hon. John B. Bellinger, III, former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council
  • Prof. Rosa Brooks, Associate Dean, Graduate Programs & Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Moderator: Prof. David Stewart, President, American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA)

Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC

Alliances and Interventions - Event Audio/Video

International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears
Brian H. Hook, Lawrence Korb, Kristen Silverberg January 27, 2017

The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a half-day conference on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. This second panel will discuss the future of American alliances and interventions under the Trump administration.

This panel was part of the conference on International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears held on January 23, 2017, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC.

Panel II: Alliances and Interventions
10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.

  • Hon. Brian H. Hook, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations
  • Hon. Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense 
  • Amb. Kristen Silverberg, Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union  
  • Moderator: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC

Courthouse Steps: Ziglar v. Abbasi - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
January 27, 2017

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss which was rejected by the in the District Court.

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit and then the government petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Professor Jamil Jaffer joined us to discuss the oral argument of this case, which was held on January 18.  

Featuring:

  • Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, Antonin Scalia Law School and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee