Boumediene v bush summary Rating:
6,2/10
812
reviews
Boumediene v. Bush was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2008 that dealt with the issue of habeas corpus and the detention of enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
At the heart of the case was Lakhdar Boumediene, a native of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was arrested by Bosnian authorities in 2001 on suspicion of terrorism. He was later transferred to U.S. custody and detained at Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial. Boumediene and several other detainees filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that they had a right under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention in a court of law.
The Bush administration argued that the detainees were not entitled to habeas corpus because they were not U.S. citizens and were being held outside of U.S. territory. The administration also claimed that the detainees were enemy combatants who were not entitled to the same legal protections as ordinary criminal defendants.
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Boumediene and the other detainees, holding that they had a constitutional right to habeas corpus. The Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that the detainees were not entitled to habeas corpus because they were not U.S. citizens, stating that the Constitution's habeas corpus provision applies to all "persons" within the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship.
The Court also rejected the administration's argument that the detainees were not entitled to habeas corpus because they were being held outside of U.S. territory, stating that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was effectively under U.S. control and therefore within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The decision in Boumediene v. Bush was a significant victory for the detainees and a major blow to the Bush administration's policy on the detention of enemy combatants. It established that even non-citizen detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had the right to challenge their detention in a court of law and ensured that they would not be held indefinitely without charge or trial.
Boumediene v. Bush :: 553 U.S. 723 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Kennedy Justices Stevens and Kennedy issued a statement accompanying the denial of certiorari, essentially stating that the petitioners had not exhausted all available remedies before asking the Court to exercise its jurisdiction. Or will subpoenas issued by American habeas courts run to Basra? Petitioners and their amici further rely on cases in which British courts in India granted writs of habeas corpus to noncitizens detained in territory over which the Moghul Emperor retained formal sovereignty and control. It intended to create a more limited procedure. On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. And if their ability to introduce such evidence is denied contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States, the D. What, for example, will become of the CSRT process? Contrary to the majority, Hamdi is of pressing relevance because it establishes the procedures American citizens detained as enemy combatants can expect from a habeas court proceeding under §2241.
Boumediene v. Bush :: 549 U.S. 1328 (2007) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
This century-old doctrine informs our analysis in the present matter. It was revealed that the Combatant Status Review Tribunal did not provide adequate procedural protections during the hearing, in which the law permits alien detainees to present reasonable evidence as needed to challenge their detention. Still, the writ proved to be an imperfect check. The federal government is subject to the Constitution even when it acts outside U. See Part V, infra. As the Court basically admits, the DTA can be read to permit the D. This interpretive rule facilitates a dialogue between Congress and the Court.
Implementation Memo, supra, at 152, 154—155, 156; Brief for Federal Respondents 54—55. Our cases do not hold it is improper for us to inquire into the objective degree of control the Nation asserts over foreign territory. If, in a future case, a detainee files a habeas petition in another judicial district in which a proper respondent can be served, see Rumsfeld v. See De Lima v. AL ODAH, next friend of FAWZI KHALID ABDULLAH FAHAD AL ODAH, et al.
See Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. This is a legitimate objective that might be advanced even without an amendment to §2241. Compliance with any judicial process requires some incremental expenditure of resources. §1005 e C , ibid. See Eisentrager, supra, at 778, 780. We hold that Art.
This premise, however, is unfounded. The cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions that it remand the cases to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The first actions commenced in February 2002. It also must have the authority to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding. In comparison the procedural protections afforded to the detainees in the CSRT hearings are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Raines, any scenario in which the statute might be constitutionally infirm, the law must be struck down. Their return to the kill illustrates the incredible difficulty of assessing who is and who is not an enemy combatant in a foreign theater of operations where the environment does not lend itself to rigorous evidence collection.
In the past, this Court has expedited other cases where important issues and a need for speedy consideration were at stake. See Spector Motor Service, Inc. While some delay in fashioning new procedures is unavoidable, the costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain. Like all parts of occupied Germany, the prison was under the jurisdiction of the combined Allied Forces.
Rumsfeld, Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by CSRTs. In Boumediene, the District Court habeas corpus rights. Instead, the political branches crafted CSRT and D. Unlike Scotland and Hanover, Canada followed English law. See ante, at 26—29.
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. United States, United States v. And if their ability to introduce such evidence is denied contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States, the D. As we did in Rasul, however, we take notice of the obvious and uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory. MCA §7 denies the federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas actions, like the instant cases, that were pending at the time of its enactment. Court Reform Act, the statute upheld in Swain, contained a similar provision.
It is unreasonable to suggest that the D. Under the terms of the 1934 Treaty, however, Cuba effectively has no rights as a sovereign until the parties agree to modification of the 1903 Lease Agreement or the United States abandons the base. The Court of Appeals could later review any new or reinstated decision in light of the supplemented record. The extent of the showing required of the Government in these cases is a matter to be determined. To require these detainees to pursue the limited structure of DTA review before proceeding with habeas actions would be to require additional months, if not years, of delay. At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield.
