Today, Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Courts and Competition Policy Subcommittee Chairman Henry C. “Hank” Johnson (D-Ga.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) introduced the “Open Access to Courts Act of 2009” to address the Ashcroft v. Iqbal decision, which has led to the premature dismissal of numerous civil rights, environmental, and consumer protection cases.

“The Supreme Court’s decision has slammed shut the courthouse door on legitimate plaintiffs,” said Chairman Nadler. “Its decision, unfortunately, will reward any defendant who succeeds in concealing evidence of wrongdoing, whether it is government officials who violate people’s rights, polluters who poison drinking water, or employers who engage in discrimination,” continued Nadler. “The accessibility and impartiality that was once guaranteed in the civil justice system is no more. The ‘Open Access to Courts Act’ will allow us to return to settled procedural law in order to ensure that all have an opportunity to enforce their rights in court,” said Nadler.

Chairman Johnson said, “Unless Congress acts, the Supreme Court’s Iqbal ruling will lead to the dismissal of meritorious cases as plaintiffs are held to an excessive procedural standard. The ‘Open Access to Courts Act’ will level the playing field and ensure that everyday Americans have the opportunity to defend their rights in court.”

Chairman Conyers said, “Iqbal is yet another example of the Supreme Court slowly, but strategically, chipping away at the rights and protections afforded by statute and under the Constitution. The Court’s decision to abandon more than half a century of established civil litigation practice has left numerous individuals without the right to judicial redress in the federal court system. With the ‘Open Access to Courts Act’, we can ensure that the courthouse doors are open to everyone.”

On May 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (556 U.S. ___ (2009)) that abandoned more than half a century of established law, leading to the dismissal of numerous civil rights, environmental, and consumer protection cases. Prior to the Iqbal decision, to get into court, a plaintiff was required to provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As the Supreme Court explained in Conley v. Gibson (355 U.S. 41 (1957)), the case could proceed “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” The new rule announced in the Iqbal decision requires judges to make a subjective determination, in the absence of evidence, of the “plausibility” of facts articulated in a complaint. It is a determination that the Supreme Courts says “requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Unfortunately, evidence of wrongdoing is often in the hands of the defendants, and the facts necessary to prove a valid claim can only be ascertained through discovery.

The “Open Access to Courts Act of 2009” will restore the Conley standard. This return to settled procedural law will ensure that all have an opportunity to enforce their rights in court. The legislation is supported by a diverse coalition that includes the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Christian Trial Lawyer’s Association, Sierra Club, and National Senior Citizens Law Center.