## Facts

- After September 11, 2001, federal officials adopted a “hold-until-cleared” policy requiring certain noncitizens arrested on immigration charges to remain detained until the FBI affirmatively cleared them of terrorism connections.
- Eight male noncitizens of Arab or Muslim background (or perceived as such) were detained for approximately three to eight months, despite alleging they had no ties to terrorism.
- Some plaintiffs were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, including in highly restrictive housing with 23-hour-per-day cell confinement.
- The MDC plaintiffs alleged harsh and punitive conditions, including frequent strip searches, constant restrictive confinement, and verbal and physical abuse, and that they were denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge their “of interest” designation.
- Other plaintiffs were held at the Passaic County Jail; their claims were treated separately because of differing conditions and asserted links to federal policy.
- Plaintiffs brought a damages action against high-level federal officials and MDC officials, alleging constitutional violations and a discriminatory conspiracy related to post-9/11 detention policies and conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether damages claims could proceed under Bivens against high-level federal officials and prison officials for alleged unconstitutional post-9/11 detention policies and conditions.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged each defendant’s personal involvement in the challenged policies and conditions under the pleading standards for supervisory liability.
3. Whether qualified immunity barred the substantive due process, equal protection, Fourth Amendment strip-search, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) conspiracy claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
4. Whether plaintiffs stated a plausible free exercise claim based on alleged restrictions during detention.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal rulings and remanded for further proceedings.
- For the MDC plaintiffs, the court held the complaint plausibly stated:
  - a substantive due process conditions-of-confinement claim against the high-level federal officials and certain MDC officials (with limits as to which officials were tied to “official” versus “unofficial” conditions);
  - an equal protection claim against the high-level federal officials and certain MDC officials;
  - a Fourth Amendment strip-search claim against certain MDC officials; and
  - a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim against the high-level federal officials and certain MDC officials.
- The court held the relevant defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage on the surviving MDC claims.
- The free exercise claim was dismissed as to all defendants.
- All claims by the Passaic detainees were dismissed.
- Claims against one MDC warden were dismissed for failure to plausibly allege personal involvement.

## Legal Principles

- Bivens may permit damages claims against federal officials for unconstitutional detention conditions and intentional discrimination, where the pleaded context fits within recognized Bivens-type claims and no sufficient basis for dismissal is shown at the pleading stage.
- A civil detainee states a substantive due process claim by plausibly alleging conditions that amount to punishment or are not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective.
- Equal protection prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin; plausible allegations of targeting and harsher treatment on such grounds can state a claim against responsible policy-makers and implementers.
- Routine, suspicionless strip searches may violate the Fourth Amendment when plausibly alleged to be punitive or unjustified by legitimate security needs.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires plausible allegations of a conspiracy motivated by invidious discriminatory animus to deprive persons of equal protection (or equal privileges and immunities).
- Qualified immunity does not warrant dismissal where the complaint plausibly alleges conduct violating clearly established constitutional prohibitions on punitive detention conditions and intentional discrimination.
- Supervisory liability requires plausible allegations connecting each defendant to the challenged policy decisions or implementation; conclusory assertions are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the MDC plaintiffs to proceed past the pleading stage on Bivens-based substantive due process and equal protection claims (and certain Fourth Amendment and § 1985(3) claims) against specified federal and MDC officials, while dismissing the free exercise claim, dismissing all Passaic plaintiffs’ claims, and dismissing claims against an MDC warden for lack of plausible personal involvement.


Turkmen v. Hasty, 789 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2015)