Ashcroft v. Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011)
Ashcroft v. Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011)
The appellant was John D. Ashcroft who served as the United States of America Attorney General between 2001 and 2005. In response to the appeal were, Abdullah al-Kidd, first Respondent, and The American Civil Liberties Union, second Respondent.
Facts
Abdullah al-Kidd was an America citizen, then a student at the University of Idaho where he even played football for the University. He converted into Islam during the course of his studies. In 2003, Abdullah opted to study Islamic law and religion in Saudi Arabia and embarked on his journey to the East. However, he was arrested on board and held for fifteen nights under the provision of the Federal Material Statute, which permitted for such actions if the officers are / were convinced that it is essential for the proper administration of the law. His detention was intended to make him available to testify in the trail of terrorist suspect Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. However, as it would turn, no charges were impressed against this person and he also did not testify in the trial as was supposed to be. Abdullah was later released.
Prior Proceedings
After release in 2009, Abdullah sued the Attorney General for the wrongful detention. He applied for the suit at the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeal allowed for the suit and held that the Attorney General could be sued and held liable for the actions committed against the person of the First Respondent. Ashcroft appealed against this holding to the Supreme Court of the United States of America challenging the legal basis of the Ninth Court’s ruling.
Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has competent appellate jurisdiction over the case. This is due to the fact that it a law matter. The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction on matters of law. Otherwise matters of fact cannot be appealed against and the original jurisdiction on the case is also conferred on the Court of Appeal.
Holding/ Ruling of law
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled by a vote of eight to zero that Ashcroft could not be held personally liable for the detention of the American citizen in the backdrop of a case in relation to the 9/11 Attacks. The Court also held that holding Ashcroft liable should have been envisioned on official capacity as the Attorney General, rather than on his own personal capacity.
Rationale
The Court relied on the Material Witness Statute and the Fourth Amendment provision on Seizures and Reasonableness. It was the learned judges’ interpretation that the law provided for the detention of a potential witness and that he ought not to be necessarily charged or participate as a witness to fall within the province of persons entertained by the Material Witness Statute. In addition, the judges ruled that the citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights on Seizures and Reasonableness had not been violated as to warrant the personal prosecution of the Attorney General. Finally, it was the learned judges’ contention that the respondents lacked enough evidence that could make the threshold of prosecution of the Attorney General. In their opinion, the actions of the Attorney General and by extension the government were not equitable to a gross violation of the constitution. The otherwise would have justified grounds for the prosecution of the Attorney General. The ruling of the Court of Appeal was overturned.
Relation to the core value of integrity
The concept of the rule of law. The Court encouraged both government and citizens to practise fidelity the law.
References
Ashcroft v. Kidd, 131 (Supreme Court of United States May 31, 2011).
Klug , F., & Wildbore, H. (2011). Equality, Dignity and Discrimination under Human Rights Law; selected cases. Centre for the Study of Human Rights Journal, 1-31.
