Plausibility Pleading Revisited and Revised:
A Comment on Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Robert G. Bone

Forthcoming in Volume 85, Notre Dame Law Review (2010)

Boston University School of Law Working Paper 09-41

Abstract
This Essay critically examines the Supreme Court’s most recent decision on Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standards, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), decided in May 2009.  The essay supplements and extends the analysis in my recent article, Twombly, Pleading Rules, and the Regulation of Court Access, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 874 (2009), which examined the Supreme Court’s seminal Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly decision and evaluated the costs and benefits of screening meritless suits at the pleading stage.  In this essay, I argue that Iqbal does much more than clarify and reinforce key points in Twombly; it takes Twombly’s plausibility standard in a new and ultimately ill-advised direction.  My criticism has two parts.  First, Iqbal adopts a “two-pronged approach” that filters legal conclusions in the first prong before applying the plausibility standard to factual allegations in the second.  I argue that this two-pronged approach is incoherent.  There is only one prong: the judge must determine whether the complaint, interpreted as a coherent whole, plausibly supports each element of the legal claim.  The second problem with Iqbal runs deeper.  Iqbal screens lawsuits more aggressively than Twombly, and does so without adequate consideration of the policy stakes.  In particular, Iqbal applies a thick screening model that aims to screen weak as well as meritless suits, whereas Twombly applies a thin screening model that aims to screen only truly meritless suits.  The thick screening model is highly problematic on policy grounds, even in cases like Iqbal that involve qualified immunity. Moreover, the Supreme Court is not institutionally well-equipped to decide whether strict pleading is desirable, especially when it implements a thick screening model.  Those decisions should be made through the formal Rules Enabling Act process or by Congress.

 

Keywords: pleading, plausibility, case screening, Rule 8(a)(2), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, two-pronged approach

JEL Classification:

Accepted Paper Series

Citation: Bone, Robert G.,"Plausibility Pleading Revisited and Revised: A Comment on Ashcroft v. Iqbal," forthcoming in Volume 85, Issue 4 Notre Dame Law Review (2010); B.U. Law Working Paper No. 09-41; SSRN No. 1467799.

Size: 164 KB
Est. download time @ 28.8K: 6 seconds


Adobe Acrobat Reader v3.01 or greater is required to view this paper.
To obtain a free copy, click the button below



Robert G. Bone Contact Information

Email: rbone@bu.edu
Boston University School of Law
765 Commonwealth Ave
Boston, MA 02215
USA

Phone: 617-353-4421

Fax: 617-353-3077

SSRN Location:
http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1467799


Click here to close this window.