The Blog of Legal Times points out a gem in retiring Justice David Souter's opinions, suggesting that we should read his work more closely than we have been. Justice Souter believes in giving a lot of leeway to the plaintiff when she states a claim, as in the Iqbal decision, recently released.
The sole exception to this rule lies with allegations that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff's recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel. That is not what we have here.
Citing Twombly, he goes on, "Under Twombly, the relevant question is whether, assuming the factual allegations are true, the plaintiff has stated a ground for relief that is plausible. " Justice Souter finds no suggestions analogous to the little green men kind in the allegation that Attorney General Ashcroft et al., might have known of and condoned the policy complained of by the petitioner.
Must be that New Hampshire pragmatism. It will be missed.
Comments