Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

the Supreme Court accused the Court of Appeals of making a legal error against
Ziglar because it should have dismissed the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3),
which “forbids certain conspiracies” to deprive any person or group of equal
protection, on the basis qualified immunity. Under qualified immunity, a
government official cannot be held accountable if there is not clear evidence
to prove that the individual acted unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court
furthers its stance by stating that conspiracy claims must “allege agreement
between parties” and since this case failed to do so, the Supreme Court could
reject the 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) claims otherwise, the lawsuits could possibly
affect relationships within the executive branch (Ziglar v. Abbasi, 2017). This
assertion clearly ignores human rights violations. Although there was no clear
evidence, there was evidence that suggested the plaintiffs were mistreated,
therefore the guards and Warden Hasty, at the very least, should have been held
accountable for their actions. However, this assertion makes it difficult for a
prisoner to claim they were abused by these individuals even if these
individuals are the prison officials that are directly
responsible for the conditions of the plaintiffs’ standard of living.


We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

conclusion, the Ziglar v. Abbasi case is special in that it introduced a topic
that the Supreme Court had never encountered. Considering the Supreme Court’s
unwillingness to expand Bivens claims beyond the traditional and usual
situations, future lawsuits for damages are put at risk. In contemporary
society, there are still attempts by the federal government to mitigate the
possibility of terrorist infiltration. For example, the travel ban proposed by
the Trump administration proves that there is still fear of the unknown. Fear
is a driving factor behind human behavior, and while ordinances may be
established that align with the constitution and are fair, fear allows humans
to enforce these laws in any way they see fit. That being said, the
implications of Ziglar v. Abbasi as it pertains to future instances when
individuals seek to file a suit for unconstitutional conduct by federal officials
is that there will likely not be any judicial relief unless the claim is made
while one is still enduring mistreatment. 

Post Author: admin


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out