Justice Antonin Sacalia Case Study
In May, 31st, 2011, Justice Antonin Sacalia delivered the opinion of The US Supreme Court regarding Ashcroft, John D. V. Al-Kidd, Abdullah case. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Al-Kidd Abdullah was arrested by Federal agents as a material-witness, after obtaining a warrant from a federal judge. Under the material-statute, in the US, a witness qualified as determinant to the issue of a criminal proceeding could be arrested in order to secure his testimony. Thus, Abdullah Al-Kidd will be arrested as a determinant witness in the trial of another individual (Sami Omar Al-Hussayen) suspected of terrorism on the US territory. Although, Abdullah Al-Kidd will never appear before a court as a suspect, neither as a witness, he will be kept in jail for 13 months. After his release, Abdullah Al-Kidd will file a lawsuit against John D. Ashcroft, the US United States
…show more content…
As a matter of fact, that arrest cannot be seen as unconstitutional. Besides, the justices have determined that the US Attorney General did not knowingly violate any established law in while he was in function and especially concerning this case; therefore he is entitled the immunity against any lawsuit. Regarding this point, the US Supreme Court justices based their law reasoning among others, on this following precedent: Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640. In this case, the conclusion has been: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, “[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear” that every “reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that
As a matter of fact, that arrest cannot be seen as unconstitutional. Besides, the justices have determined that the US Attorney General did not knowingly violate any established law in while he was in function and especially concerning this case; therefore he is entitled the immunity against any lawsuit. Regarding this point, the US Supreme Court justices based their law reasoning among others, on this following precedent: Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640. In this case, the conclusion has been: “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, “[t]he contours of [a] right [are] sufficiently clear” that every “reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that