Since announcing his plan to retire, Justice David Souter has gotten, fairly or not, some mediocre reviews for his opinion-writing and for leaving few memorable quotations behind. Some colorful language in Souter's dissent in today's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal may counter those critiques.
The majority dismissed a civil rights lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller filed by Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim who was held in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The majority found that the complaint did not contain sufficient facts to state a claim against the former officials. The case returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to determine whether Iqbal should be allowed to amend his complaint.
In his dissent, Souter said the majority was too strict in its determination of the necessary pleading standard. Complaints should be allowed, Souter said, even if a savvy judge doubts that the alleged facts can be proven. Souter added, "The sole exception to this rule lies with allegations that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff's recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel. That is not what we have here."
Somehow this gem has also been overlooked: "The language is straightforward, and with a straightforward application ready to hand, statutory interpretation has no business getting metaphysical." Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weis Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 37 (1998).
Posted by: David | May 18, 2009 at 04:25 PM