mr. ashcroft in a lawsuit in... today they were before the supreme court arguing that mr. roft has complete immunity from this lawsuit in which an american citizen-- kansas born abdullah al-kid-- charges that mr. ashcroft approved a national policy to use a certain law known as the material witness law, in order to detain american citizens and others. >> woodruff: but it's the obama administration arguing that the former attorney general should be immune from that? >> that's correct. because what's at stake here is prosecutors-- it could be the current attorney general, the next attorney general, or even lines of prosecutors, u.s. attorneys who could face damages suit under this material witness law. i want to explain what that law is, judy. basically that law tells law enforcement that if you want to arrest somebody as a material witness you have to show to a judge or magistrate that this person has material testimony and the only way you're going assure that person is available is by this material witness warrant. mr. al-kid was held for 16 days in three different detenti

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 absolute immunity. to view it any other way is to expose both line prosecutors and high officials to lawsuits by highly incentivized litigants based on their purportedly bad motives. that is something this court has manifestly resisted and for good reason, because improper motives are easy to allege and hard to disprove. allowing such suits to proceed would result in burdensome litigation

mr. ashcroft's assertion that as attorney general he was immune from prosecution. 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 integrally associated with the judicial process and entitled to absolute immunity. to view it any other way is to expose both line prosecutors and high officials to lawsuits by highly incentivized litigants based on their purportedly bad motives. that is something this court has manifestly resisted and for good reason, b

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 integrally associated with the judicial process and entitled to absolute immunity. to view it any other way is to expose both line prosecutors and high officials to lawsuits by highly incentivized litigants based on their purportedly bad motives. that is something this cour