## Facts

- After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was designated an “enemy combatant” and held in military custody.
- Padilla alleged he was detained incommunicado for nearly two years without access to family, counsel, or courts.
- He alleged coercive interrogation and harsh confinement, including extreme isolation, sleep adjustment and sensory deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures and odors, denial of medical and psychiatric care, and interference with religious exercise.
- Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron, sued John Yoo, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel (2001–2003), seeking damages based on allegations that Yoo’s legal guidance and policy work contributed to the detention and interrogation program.
- Plaintiffs asserted Bivens-type constitutional claims (including Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment theories) and invoked federal statutes and treaties, including the Non-Detention Act and the Geneva Conventions.

## Issues

1. Whether Yoo was entitled to qualified immunity because, between 2001 and 2003, it was not clearly established that the alleged detention and interrogation of a U.S.-citizen “enemy combatant” violated the asserted constitutional and statutory rights.
2. Whether clearly established law at that time provided notice that an OLC attorney could face personal damages liability for legal advice and policy participation related to such detention and interrogation.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Yoo’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity.
- The court held that, even assuming the alleged conduct was unlawful, the law during 2001–2003 was not sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood the conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights.
- The court did not decide the ultimate legality of Padilla’s detention or interrogation; it resolved the appeal on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity bars damages unless the defendant violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.
- A right is “clearly established” only when existing precedent places the unlawfulness of the conduct beyond debate; general constitutional statements are insufficient if they do not address the specific context.
- Courts may grant qualified immunity without deciding whether the alleged conduct was unconstitutional if the law was not clearly established.
- In the early post-9/11 context, the absence of controlling precedent addressing military detention and interrogation of U.S.-citizen enemy combatants weighed strongly against finding clearly established law.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held Yoo was immune from damages because, in the unsettled legal environment of 2001–2003, precedent did not clearly establish that the alleged treatment of a citizen held as an enemy combatant violated the specific constitutional and statutory constraints asserted.


Padilla v. Yoo, 678 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2012)