Talk:Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Define case

The suit was brought by one man; it did not represent all the 70 Muslim men that the ACLU said had been similarly detained. Changed the Lead and main content to reflect this.Parkwells (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction between Ashcroft v. al-Kidd article and Qualified immunity one

This article, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, says "[he] has qualified immunity that prevents such suits unless the official acted in violation of the complainant's constitutional rights"

But Qualified immunity explicitly says "shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights", so qualified immunities seems to deal with (and only with) the violation of the complainant's constitutional rights, that is just what is excluded by this article. --109.53.210.122 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the supposed contradiction? 174.60.55.71 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When that sentence paraphrased the newspaper article it was based on, it omitted a key phrase: "clearly established constitutional right". Basically, qualified immunity protects government officials only when the law wasn't yet clear about whether their acts violate the victim's rights or not. Without something like that phrase, this article's explanation of qualified immunity was incorrect. I've corrected the wording and removed the contradiction tag. —Brent Dax 10:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction is that qualified Immunity in the al-Kidd article is misarticulated as to what qualified immunity actually is- qualified immunity doesn't bar the bringing of suit; rather it is only an affirmative defense. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]