John D. Ashcroft, Petitioner, V. Abdullah Al-Kidd Case Study

John D. Ashcroft, Petitioner, V. Abdullah Al-Kidd - Case Study Example Al-Kidd further alleges that during the trial of Al-Hussayen, he has never been called as a witness and also that the authorities have â€Å"never meant to do so† (p.1). Therefore, the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Attorney General’s â€Å"alleged policy† in authorizing his detention on the pretext that he is a material witness in the trial against Sami Omar (p.1). Initially, the case has been heard by the Ninth Circuit Court, which held that the action of the Attorney General has violated the individual’s rights under the Fourth Amendment which disallows â€Å"pretextual arrests† in the absence of a possible cause of a criminal activity (p.1). John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, challenging the decision of Ninth Circuit Court, has filed the suit to Supreme Court appealing for a review. On a petition by Al-Kidd, the Ninth Circuit Court has heard the case and ordered that the Attorney General’s action of securing a warrant under the pretext that the petitioner is a material witness in another case and hence he cannot leave the country, and his detention for this reason, is a violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the court has denied Ashcroft’s motion to dismiss the petition on â€Å"qualified immunity grounds† (p.1). The main issue present in the case is the question of the validity of the detention of Al-Kidd from a legal perspective, under the prevailing threat to national security of the US. The Attorney General has allegedly secured a warrant under the federal statutes relating to â€Å"material witness† for the detention of the former (Abrams, 2011, p.1). It becomes relevant here that the action of the Attorney General in securing the warrant for the detention of the petitioner is well within the relevant laws and thus it is purely legal. Under the prevailing circumstances in the country, when terrorist activities have been rampant in the nation, the petitioner has been detained because of his relevance