Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Iqbal, Al-Kidd And Pleading Past Qualified Immunity: What The Cases Mean And How They Demonstrate A Need To Eliminate The Immunity Doctrines From Constitutional Tort Law, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd contain issue-framing statements indicating that a constitutional tort plaintiff is required to plead facts sufficient to establish the inapplicability of the qualified immunity defense. Yet, framing the issue in this way ignores the Court’s earlier decisions in Gomez v. Toledo and Crawford-El v. Britton and is at odds with the established law of pleading; a plaintiff is not required to anticipate an affirmative defense and negate its applicability in the complaint. These cases thus raise a number of questions—Does the Court really mean what its issue-framing statements suggest? …
Mirabile Dictum! The Case For 'Unnecessary' Constitutional Rulings In Civil Rights Damages Actions, John M. Greabe
Mirabile Dictum! The Case For 'Unnecessary' Constitutional Rulings In Civil Rights Damages Actions, John M. Greabe
Law Faculty Scholarship
This article contends that, for purposes of settling the law, courts entertaining civil rights lawsuits doomed to fail on grounds of qualified immunity should presumably address the question whether the complaint pleads a viable claim that the defendant caused a violation of the plaintiff's federal rights. The article also contends that such "unnecessary" threshold rulings are not dicta.