Ten groups file amicus briefs in support of Abbasi, including law professors, immigration organizations, and descendants of Fred Korematsu, who challenged Japanese internment during World War II.

After being ordered to respond by the Second Circuit, CCR files a brief explaining why the Second Circuit’s landmark June 17 ruling was correct and does not require reconsideration by the entire circuit court.  

The court reinstates claims against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI director Robert Mueller, and former INS Commissioner James Ziglar for their roles in the post-9/11 immigration detentions, abuse, and religious profiling of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian men. It is exceedingly rare for a court to allow claims against such high-level officials to proceed.

CCR argues the suit meets the standards for holding federal officials accountable for civil rights violations articulated in the 2009 Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Iqbal, a case also involving mistreatment of post-9/11 detainees. In that case the high court ruled that the plaintiff’s pleadings were not specific enough to bring an equal protection claim against high-level government officials.

The complaint adds as potential class representatives six new plaintiffs: Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, Anser Mehmood, Benamar Benatta, Ahmed Khalifa, Saeed Hammouda, and Purna Raj Bajracharya. It also adds new detail about the involvement of the high-level defendants, including former attorney general John Ashcroft, in the conditions and abuse.

CCR announces that the five MDC plaintiffs have settled their claims against the United States for $1.26 million. At the same time, CCR seeks permission from the district court to amend the complaint to add five new plaintiffs.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that Iqbal had not included enough facts in his complaint to plausibly allege that former Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller had a role in his discriminatory confinement and abuse. This decision has far-reaching implications for pleading standards.

Three amicus briefs are filed, by Karen Korematsu, immigration law professors, and former wardens.

After several years, Judge Gleeson decides the pending motions to dismiss. The judge dismisses the claims challenging our clients' prolonged pretextual detention but allows the conditions of confinement and racial and religious discrimination claims to proceed. CCR seeks and receives permission from the court to appeal the partial dismissal immediately.

In response to revelations about the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program, CCR demands to know whether communications between CCR and the Turkmen plaintiffs are being intercepted and revealed to government attorneys or defendants. The United States government vigorously fights to avoid stating whether or not it has access to surveillance of CCR attorneys in the case.

Judge Gleeson denies the MDC wardens' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint. Motions by the higher-level defendants remain pending.

CCR fights to get discovery into the names of the officers described in the second OIG report, and uses this to write a third amended complaint, which names as defendants 28 MDC employees, included wardens, lieutenants, correctional officers, and counselors. The new complaint also adds an eighth plaintiff and several Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States. The parties engage in extended briefing over the defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on qualified immunity grounds, as well as for lack of standing and jurisdiction. Defendants also challenge CCR's international law claims.

The first Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) report is released, describing the government's secret round-up of more than 700 Muslim and Arab non-citizens after 9/11 on the pretext of immigration violations. It describes the government’s application of a blanket policy of denying them release on bond, even when the government lacked evidence that they posed a danger or a flight risk, and of the blanket policy of continuing to hold them for criminal investigatory purposes even after they could have been deported.