Obama Lawyer Urges Supreme Court To Shield High-Ranking Officials From Lawsuits

The administration’s final argument before the justices could empower the next president.

Two days before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the Obama administration did him a big favor by telling the Supreme Court it would be best to insulate high-ranking Bush-era officials who stand accused of unconstitutional conduct in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

How the justices decide the long-running case, Ziglar v. Abbasi, could have profound implications for the incoming administration, whose soon-to-be chief executive clinched the presidency on promises that he’d mass-deport millions of undocumented immigrants, ban Muslims from entering the country and bring back torture for terrorism suspects.

“There’s no blank check, even for the president,” Justice Stephen Breyer said during Wednesday’s hourlong hearing in the case, a dispute over whether courts can adjudicate constitutional violations by federal officials.

“And if there’s no blank check, that means sometimes they can go too far.

And if they have gone too far, it is our job to say that.”

President Barack Obama’s two appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were not in the courtroom.

Both women are recused from the case, presumably due to their prior roles as appellate judge and solicitor general for Obama, respectively.

Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn, delivering the last oral argument of the Obama years on Wednesday, defended the policies of the Bush administration in the chaotic weeks and months after Sept. 11, 2001, under which more than 700 non-citizens of Arab or Muslim descent were profiled, rounded up and detained for several months as terror suspects — despite a later Department of Justice report that found that none of them had any ties to terrorism.

Obama Lawyer Urges Supreme Court To Shield High-Ranking Officials From Lawsuits
JOE RAEDLE VIA GETTY IMAGES | Protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to mark 15 years since the first prisoners were brought to the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Jan. 11, 2017.

Gershengorn argued that these lists of suspects were “facially valid constitutional policies,” and that a group of former detainees who sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI director Robert Mueller and other top officials over their deployment have no legal recourse against them in the courts.

“You know from day one that many of them have nothing to do with terrorists,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “and yet you allow that system that might have been justified in October [2001] to persist for months and months when these people are being held in the worst possible conditions of confinement.”

From police officers to Secret Service agents, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to allow lawsuits against government officials, even if plaintiffs can make a strong case that they violated the Constitution.

But the court has made some concessions.

“Part of the policy that we’ve announced is that we don’t want people forming policy to have to worry about they’re going to have to pay if the policy is found infirm,” Chief Justice John Roberts told Rachel Meeropol, the New York lawyer representing the detainees.

Congress has never passed a law to hold accountable federal officials who violate people’s constitutional rights. But in 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents that the Constitution opens the courthouse door to lawsuits over these violations. In the decades since, the justices have been very cautious about expanding that right to sue — a detail that was not lost on some of the justices this week.

“I think you’re asking us to go further,” Justice Anthony Kennedy told Meeropol. “I think what you’re asking for is a legitimate argument with many valid points to it, but you’re asking for us to create a new Bivens cause of action.”

The lawyer responded that expanding that right would be “appropriate” in light of how her clients have been treated.

There’s no blank check, even for the president.
Justice Stephen Breyer

“The core of our complaint is that there was no sensitive national security judgments being exercised. No one was being vetted. No one was determined to be a threat,” Meeropol said.

In its own report, the Justice Department found that the detainees were held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, strip-searched and given only meager necessities in terms of hygiene and food, among other forms of mistreatment.

Breyer, striking a pragmatic tone, said he could “understand” why government officials, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, would be quick to “pick up anybody you might think is connected, and we’ll worry about the rest of it later.”

But he suggested that completely foreclosing the possibility to even sue and develop a record about these issues — which include the unwarranted detention of suspects for up to eight months ― might be a bridge too far.

“I mean, that’s what’s worrying me a lot. And why doesn’t that at least state an allegation?” he said. “Suppose it had been five years. Suppose it had been 10 years.”

When all is said and done, the Supreme Court could very well decide that there’s no room under its Bivens doctrine to bring these claims against the highest reaches of the federal government — a result that, for better or for worse, could be a boon to the next administration, and any other after it.

“If individuals who are the subject of clearly unconstitutional national security policy don’t even have the opportunity to get into the court, then there is nothing to deter even more excessive exercises of government power in the future,” Meeropol warned at the close of her argument.

With only six of its members on the case, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in Ziglar v. Abbasi before the end of June.

Find us here

Get news from the CSGLOBE in your inbox each weekday morning

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors/source and do not necessarily reflect the position of CSGLOBE or its staff.

Paid content

Putin has Banned Rothschild and His New World Order Banking Cartel Family from Entering Russian Territory

As of recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin took yet another decision for his country. "Under any circumstances", the Rothschild family is banned from entering Russian territory. Along...

Rothschild Bank Now Under Criminal Investigation After Baron David De Rothschild Indictment

Last year, Baron David de Rothschild was indicted by the French government after he was accused of fraud in a scheme that allegedly embezzled...

The End Of The (Petro)Dollar? Venezuela is Paying Iran In Gold For Help

With cash levels dwindling and its once mighty oil sector on its knees and needing help desperately,...

What's New Today

Georgia House Votes To Allow Citizens To Abolish Police Departments In The State

The Georgia House backed an effort on Friday to dissolve the Glynn County Police Department and any...

Leaked CDC document contradicts Pence claim that U.S. coronavirus cases ‘have stabilized’

Even as Vice President Mike Pence wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Tuesday that coronavirus...

Five bombshells about Trump from Bolton ‘s book

Excerpts from former national security adviser John Bolton ’s book about his time in the Trump administration...

Don’t Listen to Fox. Here’s What’s Really Going On in Seattle’s Protest Zone.

It seems I live in a city undergoing a “totalitarian takeover” that will lead to “fascist outcomes”...

MOST READ

Putin has Banned Rothschild and His New World Order Banking Cartel Family from Entering Russian Territory

As of recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin took yet another decision for his country. "Under any circumstances", the Rothschild family is banned from entering Russian territory. Along...

What Is Agenda 21? Depopulation of 95% of the World By 2030

Most people are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program which plans to depopulate 95%...

Rothschild Bank Now Under Criminal Investigation After Baron David De Rothschild Indictment

Last year, Baron David de Rothschild was indicted by the French government after he was accused of fraud in a scheme that allegedly embezzled...

Putin has Banned Rothschild and His New World Order Banking Cartel Family from Entering Russian Territory

As of recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin took yet another decision for his country. "Under any circumstances", the Rothschild family is banned from entering Russian territory. Along...

10 Stories the Mainstream Media Ignored While Obsessing Over #CaitlynJenner

Last week, the world stopped turning to focus on the recent debut of Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic athlete formerly known as Bruce. Jenner, the ex-husband...

Ecuador ditches plan to save Amazon from oil drilling

The world has failed us: Ecuador ditches plan to save Amazon from oil drilling A ground-breaking scheme that would have preserved swathes of Ecuador’s Amazon...

Australian Baptist Pastor Calls Islam ‘A CANCER we must Destroy’

An Australian Baptist church that provides scripture to government schools has come under fire after a video surfaced of its pastor describing Islam as...

Iran Becomes 9th Country To Ban Animal Acts In Circuses

All around the world, the plight of animal rights activists is being received. Not only did SeaWorld recently announce that it will officially end its...

What Makes a Building Green’ ?

We know that you understand that green means environmentally friendly – we want to help you better understand what it really means for a...

Albert Einstein- How I See the World

Albert Einstein is considered one of the greatest scientific thinkers of all time. His theories on the nature of time and space profoundly affected...

Billionaire Banker David Rockefeller Dies Aged 101

New World Order kingpin and globalist billionaire tyrant David Rockefeller has been confirmed dead. Rockefeller was the last surviving grandson of John D. Rockefeller, the...