Ashcroft v. Iqbal

This opinion is safely relied on only when a court is reviewing, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal, the sufficiency of a complaint alleging purposeful discrimination by high-ranking federal officials resting on high-level policy allegations without defendant-specific factual detail. Its reasoning supports dismissal only insofar as the complaint contains no non-conclusory, defendant-specific factual allegations plausibly showing that each official acted because of a protected characteristic rather than pursuant to an obvious lawful and nondiscriminatory explanation, and discovery has not yet occurred. It does not resolve the availability or scope of Bivens remedies (including First Amendment claims), the full contours of supervisory liability, the merits of the alleged constitutional violations, or the propriety of discovery once adequate pleading is shown, and reliance beyond these limits risks over-extension of posture-bound assumptions into substantive doctrine.