2001 FBI and Immigration arrested Javid Iqbal on charges of fraud in relation to identification documents and conspiracy to defraud the United States violations of 18 U.S.C. §371 and §1028. Pending the trial Mr. Iqbal was held in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in New York. In 2002 he was placed in a section of the MDC known as the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit (ADMAX SHU). He was kept in lock down 23 hours daily,1 hour outside his cell in handcuffs and leg irons accompanied by 4-officer escort.

WERE ROBERT MULLER AND JOHN ASHCROFT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AGAINST THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY WHERE AWARE OF AND CONDONDED TO, FOR RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINTAION AGAINST JAVID IQBAL DETAINED AFTER 9/11 ATTACKS?

In order for the Mr. Iqbal (Respondent) to succeed with claim of discrimination in contravention of the 1 st and 5 th Amendments Mr. Iqbal must plead with factual matter and prove that Mr. Ashcroft / Mr. Muller (P) acted with discriminatory purpose. Mr. Iqbal (R) must provide sufficient factual matter to show that (P) adopted and implemented the detention policies at issue not for a neutral investigative reason but for the purpose of discriminating on account of race, religion, or national origin. Moreover, the court noted that a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Hence there must be more than a mere allegation stated in the pleading for the claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Analyzing the allegations that the detainees were designated “ of high interest” because of their race, religion, or national origin the Court considered that the 9/11 attackers were Arab Muslim hijackers and a policy detaining individuals because of their suspected link should come to no surprise.

In a 5 to 4 decision delivered on May 18, 2009 by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision (which held that the Plaintiff did plead sufficient facts). The Supreme Court held that Iqbal’s complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination. The court affirmed that the Second Circuit had subject-matter jurisdiction to affirm the District Court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to dismiss.Justice Kennedysubject-matter jurisdiction The Court found that according to precedent, government officials could not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondent superior and that because vicarious liability was inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. (Supervisory liability)respondent superiorvicarious liability