## Facts

- Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim arrested on federal charges after 9/11, was detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn.
- Iqbal was classified as a “high-interest” detainee and housed in the MDC’s Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit (ADMAX SHU).
- He alleged severe confinement conditions, including prolonged isolation, frequent strip searches, constant lighting, and physical and verbal abuse with religious and racial slurs.
- Iqbal alleged that federal officials implemented or condoned a post-9/11 policy that targeted Arab and Muslim men for restrictive detention based on race, religion, and national origin.
- He filed a Bivens damages action against line and supervisory officials, including the MDC warden and senior DOJ/FBI officials, alleging First and Fifth Amendment violations.
- The district court denied dismissal in significant part, including denial of qualified immunity at the pleading stage; defendants pursued interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had collateral-order jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity to the extent the appeal raised legal questions.
2. Whether the complaint, under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6), sufficiently alleged personal involvement and discriminatory intent by supervisory federal officials to state First and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims.
3. Whether qualified immunity required dismissal at the pleading stage where the complaint alleged purposeful discrimination and punitive or unduly harsh confinement without due process.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit exercised interlocutory jurisdiction to review the legal sufficiency of the qualified-immunity ruling.
- The court largely affirmed the denial of the motions to dismiss, including as to senior officials, permitting the case to proceed.
- It held the complaint sufficiently alleged (at the pleading stage) personal involvement by each defendant through policy creation, approval, or knowing maintenance of unconstitutional practices.
- It concluded the complaint adequately alleged purposeful discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin and unconstitutional punitive confinement conditions.
- It held qualified immunity did not justify dismissal at the pleading stage because the asserted constitutional protections were clearly established and the claims depended on intent and other facts not suitable for resolution on the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- Denials of qualified immunity may be immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine to the extent they turn on legal questions.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, factual allegations are accepted as true and the complaint must provide fair notice of the claims and grounds.
- Supervisory liability in Bivens actions may be pleaded by alleging direct participation or responsibility for creating, authorizing, or maintaining a policy under which unconstitutional practices occurred, among other recognized supervisory bases.
- Purposeful discrimination by federal officials on race, religion, or national origin can violate the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
- Pretrial detainees have a clearly established right not to be subjected to punitive or unduly harsh conditions without due process; where intent and motivation are disputed, qualified immunity often cannot be resolved solely on the pleadings.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Iqbal’s allegations of discriminatory post-9/11 detention policies and harsh confinement conditions were sufficient to state First and Fifth Amendment Bivens claims and that qualified immunity did not warrant dismissal at the pleading stage, allowing discovery to proceed.


Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007)