Boumediene v. Bush

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008 United States Supreme Court case

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of _habeas corpus _ petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene , a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina , held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba .[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control.[6] The case was consolidated with habeas petition _Al Odah v. United States _. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 . Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

On June 12, 2008, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5–4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the writ of _habeas corpus _ under the United States Constitution (and in particular the Suspension Clause ) and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases , by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains _de facto _ sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees, rejecting petitioners' arguments, but the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well.[1] Invoking _Marbury v. Madison _ (1803), the Court concluded:

The Nation's basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is'.

Along with _Rasul v. Bush _ (2004), _Hamdi v. Rumsfeld _ (2004), and _Hamdan v. Rumsfeld _ (2006), this was a landmark case in the Court's detainee jurisprudence.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boumediene_v._Bush&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, Congress approved the use of military force and the United States launched a "war on terrorism ", quickly leading to the United States invasion of Afghanistan (October 2001).

In November 2001, President Bush asserted authority to try captives from the War before "military commissions " instead of through the civilian court system. Many captives from the war were held at Camp X-Ray , which was opened at the United States' Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba in January 2002. While the United States has an indefinite lease on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba still maintained _de jure _ sovereignty over the area. Because of the mixed jurisdiction, the Bush administration stated that the captives are not subject to American law and have no right to protection under the United States Constitution nor the American justice system.

Beginning in 2002, family and friends of approximately 200 captives initiated _habeas corpus _ submissions to challenge the detentions. These submissions eventually worked their way through the courts, and on June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in _Rasul v. Bush _ (2004). In a 6–3 decision, the Court dismissed the administration's argument that the Naval Base is outside civilian courts' jurisdiction and ruled that the captives must be given an opportunity to hear and attempt to refute whatever evidence had caused them to have been classified as "enemy combatants ". As a result, the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals .

At the end of 2005, the United States Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts over habeas petitions from prisoners held at Guantanamo. The DTA restricted the submission of additional habeas corpus submissions to the courts, though it did not affect already filed habeas corpus submissions.

Seven months later, after the Supreme Court ruled in _Hamdan v. Rumsfeld _ (2006) that the Geneva Conventions could be enforced in federal courts, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in October, creating Military Commissions similar to those set up by the Executive Branch in the Hamdan case (and retaining most of the features that had concerned critics. For example, the Commissions were empowered to hear and consider "hearsay evidence ", suspects were restricted from attempting to refute or learn about evidence against them that was classified , and submission of evidence extracted from persons using "enhanced interrogation techniques ", prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, was allowed.) The Act attempted to mandate that all outstanding habeas corpus submissions on behalf of the captives should be quashed.

In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit considered Lakhdar Boumediene's habeas corpus submission, and in a split decision, upheld the Congress's authority to quash the outstanding habeas corpus submissions.[7] In April 2007, the Court declined to review the Circuit Court's decision.

Within a few months, it reversed this decision; on June 29, 2007, it granted a writ of certiorari to Boumediene and his co-defendants.[8] [9]

Over the following six months, in addition to the briefs submitted by the United States government and the petitioner, over 20 amicus briefs were filed on behalf of Boumediene and his co-defendants by the American Civil Liberties Union , the Center for Constitutional Rights ,[10] [11] the American Bar Association,[12] and numerous other persons and organizations.[13]

The Supreme Court received over two dozen briefs of _amicus curiae _ on the case, including some written strictly on t

…