attorney general john ashcroft.cia coyle of t "naonal law journal" was in the courtroom for the argument and the decision, and she joins us now. welcome back two nights in a row. >> i know, thanks, judy. >> woodruff: so i think it's fair to say, marcia, a lot of people have a hard time understanding this decision handed down, the free speech case. take us back to what happened that precipitated the lawsuit. >> okay. as you recall, there was a protest, picketing outside of a church in which a fallen marine was being... a funeral service was being held for a fallen marine. the family of the marine sued the westborough baptist church claiming that the demonstration inflicted emotional distress on them. that's a basis for a lawsuit for damages. it's a personal injury. the westborough baptist church raised as a defense the first amendment and the lower appellate court held that the first amendment did protect this speech and overturned a jury verdict in favor of the family. >> woodruff: so what was the main question, the

. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments wednesday on whether former attorney general john ashcroft could be held personally liable for the detention of an american was numb. the u.s. citizen -- an american citizen. the u.s. citizen claims he was held against his will on charges of having terrorist ties that could not be proven. justice kagan did not participate in this case. >> we'll hear argument next this morning in case 10-98, ashcroft v. al-kidd. general katyal. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: this lawsuit seeks personal money damages against a former attorney general of the united states for doing his job, allegedly with an improper motive, yet the attorney general, like the federal prosecutor in idaho who sought the material witness warrant at issue in this case, was performing the functions of his office. there are three reasons why the petitioner should not be personally liable for money damages. the first is because the prosecutor's act of seeking the material witness warrant is integrally associated with the judicial process and entitled to a

. >> on wednesday, the supreme court heard oral arguments on whether former attorney general john ashcroft could be held mars -- held liable for the detention of an american muslim. he says he was detained as part of a plan to arrest muslim men suspected of having terrorist ties. a lower court rejected mr. ashcroft bought the assertion that he was immune from lawsuits. justice kagan did not participate in this case. this is about one hour. we'll hear argument next this morning in case 10-98, ashcroft v. al-kidd. general katyal. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- this lawsuit seeks personal money damages against a former attorney general of the united states for doing his job, allegedly with an improper motive, yet the attorney general, like the federal prosecutor in idaho who sought the material witness warrant at issue in this case, was performing the functions of his office. there are three reasons why the petitioner should not be personally liable for money damages. the first is because the prosecutor's act of seeking the material witness warrant is integral