U.S. Supreme Court

Justices Mull Breyer’s Mouse-in-a-Bottle Hypo in 9-11 Suit Against AG

  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Print

U.S. Supreme Court justices mulling whether to toss a Muslim cable TV installer’s suit against the former attorney general turned to an unusual hypothetical: Could the chief executive officer of Coca-Cola win dismissal of a suit that contends he personally put mice in soda bottles?

The issue before the court is whether Javaid Iqbal’s suit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller is specific enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the New York Times reports. Igbal contends that after Sept. 11, he was put in jail, where he was beaten and subjected to extreme temperatures and constant light. He pleaded guilty to identity fraud and was deported to Pakistan, but was cleared of any involvement in terrorism, according to the Washington Post.

Iqbal claims Ashcroft and Mueller formulated policies that singled him out because of his nationality and religion. Most of the justices who spoke appeared sympathetic to the government’s argument in favor of dismissal, report the Los Angeles Times and Legal Times. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter spoke in favor of allowing the suit.

One of those appearing to side with the government was Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who advanced the mouse-in-a-bottle hypothetical. Breyer explained the hypo this way, according to a separate Legal Times story:

“Jones sues the president of Coca-Cola. His claim is the president personally put a mouse in the bottle. Now, he has no reason for thinking that. Then his lawyer says: ‘OK, I’m now going to take seven depositions of the president of Coca-Cola.’ The president of Coca-Cola says: ‘You know, I don’t have time for this; there is no basis. … I don’t want to go and spend the time to answer questions.’ “

Breyer asked if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would allow dismissal. Solicitor General Gregory Garre said the suit could be tossed under Rule 8. He noted the Supreme Court 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which interpreted the rule as requiring plaintiffs to “show a plausible entitlement to relief.”

The ABA Journal previewed the case, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in the December issue.

Give us feedback, share a story tip or update, or report an error.