The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected a 50 year-old rule that made it difficult for defendants to obtain dismissal of lawsuits before discovery was commenced. In a landmark decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that complaints in all civil cases require “more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Justice Kennedy’s 5-4 majority opinion interpreted the pleading standard, “[I]t does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” As a result, defendants may find it easier to rebuff lawsuits before undertaking expensive and potentially invasive discovery.
This important decision came in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. Iqbal, a Pakistani Muslim identified as a person of “high interest” after September 11, 2001, claimed former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft should be liable for harsh conditions of confinement that Iqbal was allegedly subjected to “solely on account of his religion, race, and/or national origin and for no legitimate penological interest.”
The Court found that the complaint Iqbal filed failed to provide enough factual content to state a claim that is “plausible on its face” against Ashcroft and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller. Applying its interpretation of the pleading standard, the Court found that Iqbal’s assertions that Ashcroft was the “principal architect” and that Mueller was “instrumental in [the] adoption, promulgation, and implementation” of an allegedly discriminatory detention policy were “conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Therefore, Iqbal’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
During oral argument, Justice Stephen Breyer hypothesized about a fictional lawsuit alleging that the president of Coca-Cola put a mouse in a bottle. The Justices were interested in the role of the Court in protecting the president of Coca-Cola and similarly busy people from the burdens of discovery when a claim is made without sufficient factual support. Although Breyer’s hypothetical presents a conceivable claim, it is not plausible that the president of Coca-Cola would put a mouse in a bottle. The Justices debated whether it is proper for a court to dismiss such a case at the pleading stage or whether the court should permit the complaint and control discovery through discovery rules.
Ultimately, the Iqbal decision gives courts authority to dismiss complaints or require Plaintiffs to file amended complaints with sufficient factual content. Courts may now disregard statements that make conclusions like those Iqbal made against Ashcroft and Mueller. Although it is conceivable that Ashcroft was the “principal architect” of a discriminatory policy, Iqbal’s complaint was deficient because it did not contain facts showing that it was plausible that the policy was adopted because of “race, religion, or national origin.”
The Iqbal ruling expanded on the Court’s 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, which arguably only applied to antitrust cases. In that case, the Court abrogated the rule established in 1957 that “a complaint should not be dismissed...unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Kennedy rejected Iqbal’s argument that Twombly should be limited to antitrust disputes. The pleading standard set forth in Twombly applies to “all civil actions.” Twombly ruled that a complaint is insufficient if it consists of “naked assertions” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Further, Twombly declared that a pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
The Iqbal decision has been cited by courts in more than 350 cases since it was decided on May 18, 2009. It will continue to have an impact on a broad range of civil matters including business disputes and cases involving vicarious liability, employment discrimination, and product liability claims.