Court cases page rev. 12 Oct 2008

7 Oct 2008.  Kiyemba v. Bush.  The Uighur detainees at G'Bay were at the center of another groundbreaking decision (see about the Parhat case, below).  The U.S. District Court in D.C. granted the habeas petitions of the 17 Uighurs held at G'Bay, all of whom have been cleared for release by even the administration's processes.  The glitch to their release was finding a country that would accept them, but the judge ordered them to be produced in person in the D.C. courtroom for release from detention, into the United States.  Families in the U.S., including Uighar immigrants, were lined up in a complex plan for housing and oversight of the released detainees. Then the D.C. Court of Appeals entered an "administrative stay" to buy time for sorting out the appeal process.  Stay tuned.  Scotus blog has provided a  summary explanation with links to some court documents.  CCR's site has a more complete set of document links to the case.  Stay tuned.

15 July 2008:  In a split decision, the 4th Cir. ruled in Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli (06-6427)  that the president has the authority to name U.S. persons captured on U.S. soil as  "enemy combatants"  and hold them indefinitely, but that Al Marri has the right to petition civilian courts for review of his detention.  There are seven separate opinions for a total of 216 pages, linked from ScotusBlog's summary of this complex ruling.

1 July 2008:  In a unanimous decision first announced on June 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned Huzaifa Parhat's classification as an "enemy combatant."  Parhat is a Chinese Uighur detainee at G'Bay,  one of a number of dissident Chinese Muslims captured in Pakistan, whom the Pentagon acknowledges are suitable for release but who are in mortal danger if returned to China.  In Parhat v. Gates (06-1397), the court ruled that, under the Detainee Treatment Act, the Pentagon had to either release Parhat or hold a new tribunal to review his status.  This case was the first federal appellate review of "enemy combatant" status, under the CSRT procedure approved by Congress.  It was not a habeas appeal.  The court released a redacted opinion (linked here) for publication on July 1.

12 June 2008:  In Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, the Supreme Court held that U.S. detainees at Guantanamo Bay retained the right to file a habeas corpus action in the U.S. District Courts.  Detainees may file a habeas action without exhausting the CSRT appeals process. 

May 2008:  Are U.S. federal courts equipped to handle sensitive terrorism cases?  Over 120 terrorism cases handled by U.S. federal courts since 1993 are analyzed in Human Rights Firsts' new report:  "In Pursuit of Justice:  Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts," by James Benjamin, Jr. and Richard Zabel (including database of cases).  Analysis and summary of the report, "Taking Stock of Federal Courts' Fitness to Prosecute Terrorism Cases," by Gabor Rona, International Legal Advisor for Human Rights First, posted on the American Constitution Society's website. 

Torture; intelligence interrogations; Guantanamo Bay.  Rasul v. Rumsfeld  (D.C. Cir. 06-5209, Jan. 11, 2008) (Suit by four former Guantanamo Bay prisoners, all British citizens, against top Pentagon officials and military officers for torture, abuse and violations of their religious rights.  Dismissing the lawsuit, the court ruled that torture and abuse that was used during detention in a military prison as part of interrogations to gather intelligence or information were "the type of conduct the defendants were employed to engage in….The alleged tortious conduct was incidental to the defendants' legitimate employment duties" — that is, running a military prison and conducting interrogations there.  "It was foreseeable that conduct that would ordinarily be indisputably 'seriously criminal' would be implemented by military officials responsible for detaining and interrogating suspected enemy combatants.") 

Rendition; "state secrets" rule.  El-Masri v. Tenet.  Kahled El-Masri is a German citizen of Lebanese descent, kidnapped in Macedonia by U.S. CIA agents, transported to a secret Afghan prison, held and interrogated for 6 monfths by the CIA, and then released on a roadside in Albania.  The ACLU brought a lawsuit on El-Masri's behalf against then-CIA director Geroge Tenet, but the suit was dismissed on the government's motion that to proceed would violate the "state secrets" doctrine  (El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F.Supp 2d 530 (E.D. Va. 2006)).  This determination was upheld in the Fourth Circuit (El-Masri v. Tenet, 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007)).  The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the Fourth Circuit ruling in place.      

Military tribunals.  Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006).  The U.S. Supreme Court held that  military commissions set up by the Bush administration after 9/11 to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, specifically violating Common Article 3.  In response to Hamdan, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in support of the administration's position.

"Enemy combatant" status determination (non-U.S. citizen captured outside U.S., detained at Guantanamo Bay).  Rasul v. Bush (542 U.S. 466 (2004)).  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction under the general habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. sec. 2244, to entertain petitions from prisoners at the U.S. Guantannamo Bay prison facility.   In response to this case, the administration developed its Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) procedure, in an attempt to provide an alternative procedure, substituting for habeas review in the federal courts, for review of a detainee's continued detention with due process protections.

"Enemy combatant" status determination (U.S. citizen captured outside U.S., detained within U.S. in navy brig).  Hamdi v. Bush  (542 U.S. 507 (2004)).  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a combatant with dual Saudi-U.S. citizenship, captured in Afghanistan and detained in the United States, was entitled to constitutional due process in the determination of his classification as an "enemy combatant."  The Court remanded for development of an appropriate procedure and fact finding under that procedure.  Hamdi was released by the U.S. government to his family in Saudi Arabia prior to implementation of the Court's decision, under a stipulated agreement between Hamdi and the U.S. government. 

"Enemy combatant" status determination (non-U.S. citizen arrested inside U.S., detained within U.S. in navy brig).  Al-Marri v. Wright (487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007)).  The Fourth Circuit invalidated the detention of a non-U.S. citizen legally residing in the U.S. and detained as an "enemy combatant."  The court's holding was based on the grounds that the legal category of "enemy combatant" does not exist in non-international armed conflicts like the conflict announced by the U.S. administration against al Qaeda.  The court suggested that transfer for criminal charges might be appropriate under the circumstances of this case, limiting its holding to further detention as an "enemy combatant."  The court granted the government's motion for rehearing en banc, and oral argument for reconsideration was held 31 Oct 2007.

Habeas Corpus:  
28 July 2008.  The federal district court for the District of Columbia has created a web page for the Guantanamo habeas cases.

CRS report: for Congress:  "Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court,"  updated July 29, 2008.