Finding Fault

The standard must be high for holding federal officials personally culpable for how detainees are treated.

LIKE A NUMBER of Arab or Muslim men, Javaid Iqbal was rounded up two months after the 2001 terrorist attacks and held in a New York detention facility. Mr. Iqbal, who was subsequently charged with identification fraud, was moved in January 2002 to a high-security section of the facility reserved for "high interest" detainees believed to have ties to Sept. 11 perpetrators or other terrorists. While there, he claims, he was beaten, deprived of adequate food, repeatedly strip-searched and subjected to solitary confinement in a cell with the lights on 24 hours a day.

Mr. Iqbal pleaded guilty to the fraud charges and was sent back to his native Pakistan in 2003. He later filed suit in an American federal court against some 50 U.S. government officials he claimed were responsible for his mistreatment. Among those named as defendants were then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who, Mr. Iqbal alleged, either directed or condoned policies that unconstitutionally targeted Arab or Muslim men for detention.

Mr. Iqbal's lawsuit is now before the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments Wednesday. The justices must decide whether Mr. Iqbal was right to sue Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller. They should rule that he was not.

Government officials are generally shielded from being personally sued for actions taken in their official capacities. This is sensible. Officials must be free to carry out their duties without fear of being hit with a lawsuit that could leave them liable for millions of dollars. The shield is also meant to protect them from being distracted from their jobs by the overwhelming paperwork and energy required to answer frivolous lawsuits.

An exception to the immunity rule is made, however, if a plaintiff can prove that his constitutional rights were violated and that officials knew or should have known that their actions breached the Constitution. In the case of a supervisor, the plaintiff must provide plausible evidence that the supervisor knew or condoned the misdeeds of lower-level officials. The problem with Mr. Iqbal's lawsuit is that he provides no evidence to support his claims that Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller either orchestrated or approved of the alleged violations.

This does not mean that high-ranking officials must escape accountability for wrongdoing. Plaintiffs should name as defendants only those they allege were directly involved in the constitutional breach. They may gather evidence and depose witnesses who can speak directly to the alleged violation. If in the process of gathering evidence they come across information that credibly points a finger at higher-ups, they can then add these supervisors to the lawsuits.