U.S. Supreme Court Settles Twombly Debate

On May 18, 2009, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,¹ the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the heightened pleading standard first announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly² broadly applies beyond a narrow category of cases, bringing further clarity to pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Debate generated by the 2007 decision in Twombly, as illustrated by its divergent application in various appeals court decisions, should now be resolved.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court announced that a complaint must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." ³ Twombly was an antitrust action brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits anticompetitive conspiracies. A significant element of a Section 1 violation is the existence of an agreement to restrain trade. In Twombly, the Supreme Court found that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to suggest "the agreement necessary to make out a §1