Connection lost
Server error
Ziglar v. Abbasi Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Post-9/11 detainees sued high-level federal officials for unconstitutional confinement. The Supreme Court refused to extend the Bivens damages remedy to this new context, citing separation of powers and national security concerns, and held the officials had qualified immunity on a related conspiracy claim.
Legal Significance: The case significantly curtails the availability of Bivens remedies, establishing a stringent test for extending them to new contexts and signaling extreme judicial reluctance to create damages actions against federal officials, especially concerning national security policy, thereby deferring to congressional authority.
Ziglar v. Abbasi Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government detained hundreds of illegal aliens deemed “of interest” to its investigation. Respondents, six men of Arab or South Asian descent, were held for three to eight months in a maximum-security unit under harsh conditions, including 23-hour-a-day confinement, constant illumination, and frequent strip searches. They alleged these conditions were punitive and discriminatory, as officials knew they had no connection to terrorism. Respondents filed suit seeking money damages from high-level executive officials (including the Attorney General and FBI Director) and the prison wardens. The claims were brought under the implied cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents for alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for conspiracy to deprive them of equal protection. The central Bivens claims challenged the official “hold-until-cleared” detention policy formulated and implemented by the executive officials.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Should the judicially created damages remedy from Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents be extended to permit suits against high-level executive officials for constitutional violations arising from a national security detention policy enacted after a major terrorist attack?
No. A Bivens remedy is not available for claims challenging the high-level Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Should the judicially created damages remedy from Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents be extended to permit suits against high-level executive officials for constitutional violations arising from a national security detention policy enacted after a major terrorist attack?
Conclusion
*Ziglar* severely restricts the *Bivens* doctrine by creating a strong presumption against Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Legal Rule
A court may not imply a damages remedy under *Bivens* if the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusm
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on separation-of-powers principles and its modern reluctance to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Supreme Court refused to extend a Bivens damages remedy to