In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI questioned more than 1,000 people with suspected terrorist links. It then detained those it deemed to be “of high interest,” most of whom were Arab Muslim men. 

Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim, was arrested and charged with fraud in the use of identification documents. While awaiting trial, Iqbal was confined to his cell 23 hours a day. He alleged that blinding light shone on him around the clock, air conditioning blasted in the summer, and heat in the winter. Guards kicked him and refused to let him pray, as required by his religion.

Iqbal ultimately pleaded guilty to the fraud charge, served a prison term and was sent back to Pakistan. He then filed a discrimination lawsuit against John Ashcroft, the former Attorney General who was in charge of the anti-terrorism investigation. Iqbal’s complaint contained the following information:

(1) Most of the 9/11 detainees were Arab Muslim men;

(2) Detainees of high interest suffered harsh treatment in prison; and 

(3) Ashcroft approved the detainment policy. Because these facts were all true, Iqbal argued, Ashcroft must have illegally discriminated against the detainees on the basis of race, religion, and national origin. 

Ashcroft moved to dismiss the suit, contending the complaint did not contain enough information to suggest that discrimination was a plausible reason for the detainment. The district court disagreed with Ashcroft and the appeals court affirmed. The case was referred to the Supreme Court. 

Questions:

1. Did Iqbal’s pleadings contain enough information to survive a motion to dismiss?

2. The court required facts that demonstrated plausibility, not possibility. What is the difference? 

3. Why did the court set probable as the standard of necessary factual allegations?