Case Citator › Ziglar v. Abbasi

Ziglar v. Abbasi

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
582 U.S. 120
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
214 of 214
Citing cases (total)
2,861
Treatment dates
2018
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. The Tenth Circuit declined to follow one nonbinding statement in Ziglar v. Abbasi; the decision's limits on new Bivens damages remedies remain in force. All 214 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Rife v. Jefferson applied Tenth Circuit precedent instead of a qualified-immunity statement joined by only four Justices; that confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

2,861 later cases cite Ziglar v. Abbasi; 214 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Ziglar v. Abbasi?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • The Tenth Circuit treated Ziglar's four-Justice statement on divided courts and qualified immunity as nonbinding and followed its own contrary circuit precedent.

    Rife v. Jefferson · Tenth Circuit · filed

    Jefferson cites Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1868 (2017), for the proposition that “[w]hen the courts are divided on an issue . . . , a reasonable official lacks the notice required before imposing liability.” But Jefferson appears to acknowledge that Ziglar’s pronouncement on this point isn’t binding. Presumably that’s because only four members of the Court joined this portion of the opinion. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737 (1983) (noting that such opinion isn’t binding). Accordingly, we remain bound by Garcia’s pronouncement that, to the extent other circuits have held conduct like Jefferson’s doesn’t violate the Constitution, those decisions don’t muddle our clearly established law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ziglar v. Abbasi and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace