WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously threw out a lawsuit against former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that had accused him of misusing his power to arrest suspects as "material witnesses" in terrorism cases.The decision continues the court's trend of shielding top Bush administration officials from lawsuits over their conduct in the "war on terrorism."By an 8-0 vote, the court said Ashcroft's use of the law was reasonable and did not clearly violate the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.The decision tosses out a lawsuit by Abdullah al Kidd, a former University of Idaho football player who was arrested at Dulles Airport and held for two weeks, ostensibly so he could serve as a witness in a pending case. He was never called to testify. Critics had said Ashcroft had misused this authority as a means of seizing people even when the government had no reason to believe they had committed a crime.Two years ago, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Al Kidd's suit against Ashcroft and said the Constitution does not give government "the power to arrest and detain American citizens for months on end … merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing."The Obama administration appealed on Ashcroft's behalf and won a reversal Tuesday.Justice Antonin Scalia said the officers who arrested Al Kidd had obtained an arrest warrant from a magistrate. The law permits taking a person into custody to hold him if his testimony "is material in a criminal proceeding." Initially, Al Kidd was seen as a likely witness in a terrorism trial in Idaho.Taking the two together, Scalia said Ashcroft acted reasonably in line with the current law. Chief Justice John G. Robert Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined him in full.Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the judgment. They said the law in this area was not clear, so Ashcroft deserved to be shielded from a suit. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate. ||||| The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out damage claims against former Attorney General John Ashcroft over an American Muslim's arrest, but four justices said the case raises serious questions about post-9/11 detentions under a federal law intended to make sure witnesses testify. 
 
 FILE - In this Feb. 19, 2010 file photo, former Attorney General John Ashcroft in Washington. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday thatAshcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in the post-9/11 arrest... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this Feb. 14, 2011 file photo, Abdullah al-Kidd is seen in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in... (Associated Press) 
 
 The justices were unanimous, 8-0, in holding that Ashcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in the arrest of Abdullah al-Kidd in 2003. The court sets a high bar for suing high-ranking officials, and all the justices agreed al-Kidd did not meet it, even though he was never charged with a crime or called to testify in the terrorism-related trial for which he ostensibly was needed. 
 
 Al-Kidd contended that his arrest under the material witness statute had a more sinister motive that violated his constitutional rights _ federal authorities suspected him of ties to terrorism but lacked evidence that he committed or was planning a crime. And, he said, Ashcroft blessed the use of the law in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to take suspected terrorists off the street. 
 
 A five-justice majority absolved Ashcroft of any wrongdoing. "We hold ... that Ashcroft did not violate al-Kidd's Fourth Amendment rights," Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion. The five justices in the majority on this aspect of the decision are all Republican appointees. 
 
 But one of those justices, Anthony Kennedy, wrote separately to stress the narrowness of the decision. Kennedy said the case left unresolved how broadly the government may use the material witness statute, which has existed in one form or another since 1789. 
 
 Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have resolved the case solely on the ground that Ashcroft could not be sued, whether or not al-Kidd's arrest violated the Constitution. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case because she worked on the issue when she was solicitor general. 
 
 Sotomayor said no previous case involving allegedly unlawful arrests "involved prolonged detention of an individual without probable cause to believe he had committed any criminal offense." 
 
 Ginsburg said al-Kidd's "ordeal is a grim reminder of the need to install safeguards against disrespect for human dignity, constraints that will control officialdom even in perilous times." 
 
 The opinions are no aid to al-Kidd or roughly six dozen other men, almost all Muslims, who were arrested and held in the months and years after Sept. 11 under the material witness statute. But federal judges asked to issue such warrants in the future might take account of what the justices said Tuesday. 
 
 The opinions "shine a light on the problems of the material witness statute and make clear that federal judges must carefully scrutinize a request for a material witness warrant," said the American Civil Liberties Union's Lee Gelernt, al-Kidd's lawyer. 
 
 Born in Kansas, Al-Kidd is a former University of Idaho football star who now teaches English to college students in Saudi Arabia. He was headed to Saudi Arabia on a scholarship in 2003 when federal agents arrested him at Washington-Dulles International Airport. 
 
 The sworn statement the FBI submitted to justify the warrant had important errors and omissions. The $5,000 one-way, first-class seat that the agents said al-Kidd purchased was, in reality, a coach-class, round-trip ticket. The statement neglected to mention that al-Kidd had been cooperative or that he was a U.S. citizen with a wife and children who also were American. 
 
 After the arrest, he was held for 16 days, during which he was strip-searched repeatedly, left naked in a jail cell and shower for more than 90 minutes in view of men and women, routinely transported in handcuffs and leg irons, and kept with people who had been convicted of violent crimes. 
 
 Even after Tuesday's ruling, al-Kidd still has claims pending against the FBI agents who obtained the material witness warrant used to arrest him. Al-Kidd has separately reached settlements with Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho jail officials over his treatment. A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled the strip searches al-Kidd endured at the federal jail in Oklahoma City "were objectively unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment." 
 
 The lawsuit against Ashcroft, attorney general from 2001 to 2005, stemmed from comments he made shortly after 9/11 that the government would preventively detain people suspected of terrorist ties, even if it had no evidence they committed a crime. 
 
 The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in allowing the lawsuit against Ashcroft to go forward, said using the material witness statute as a pretext to detain someone was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The appeals court also said Ashcroft should have known that such detentions would violate the law. 
 
 But the high court has said that an official must be tied directly to a violation of constitutional rights and must have clearly understood the action crossed that line to be held liable. No attorney general has ever been held personally liable for official actions.
– John Ashcroft is off the hook. The Supreme Court tossed out a lawsuit against the former attorney general in an 8-0 vote today, finding that he did not misuse his power or violate the 4th Amendment. American Muslim Abdullah al-Kidd sued after being arrested at Dulles Airport and held for two weeks, ostensibly as a “material witness” in a terrorism case, without ever being called to testify or charged with a crime. Supporters of the former University of Idaho football player accused Ashcroft of misusing his authority by seizing al-Kidd with no reason to believe he committed any crime. But the high court found Ashcroft’s use of the law did not clearly violate the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, in a decision that continues a trend of shielding top officials in the Bush administration when lawsuits are brought over their conduct during the “war on terror,” the Los Angeles Times notes. But, the AP adds, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the case does raise questions about how the government can use the material witness statute and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said al-Kidd’s “ordeal is a grim reminder of the need to install safeguards against disrespect for human dignity, constraints that will control officialdom even in perilous times.”