Skip to content

Tag Archives: Boumediene

Global (Statutory) Habeas After Aamer

By
Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM

As my co-authors and I put the finishing touches on the 2014-15 Supplement to Aspen Publishers’ National Security Law and Counterterrorism Law casebooks, I had another thought about the potential consequences of the D.C. Circuit’s February 2014 decision in Aamer v. Obama—about which I’ve blogged a fair amount previously. Recall that, in Aamer, the D.C. Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s decision . . .
Read more »

Habeas and the Military Commissions After Aamer

By
Friday, March 21, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I’ve already written at some length about the D.C. Circuit’s decision last month in Aamer v. Obama, in which a divided panel held that the Guantánamo detainees may challenge the conditions of their confinement through habeas petitions, notwithstanding the language of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. As Judge Tatel explained, . . .
Read more »

D.C. Circuit Dismisses Bagram Habeas Petitions

By
Tuesday, December 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM

This Christmas Eve opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson for a three-judge panel composed of Judge Thomas B. Griffith and Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams, affirms the district court’s conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions brought by detainees held at Bagram Air Force Base’s Parwan Detention Facility. We covered . . .
Read more »

The D.C. Circuit and the Guantánamo Detainees’ Right of Access to Counsel

By
Monday, September 23, 2013 at 3:31 AM

In describing Hatim v. Obama (the D.C. Circuit Guantánamo appeal in which the government filed its opening brief on Friday) as the “counsel access” case, Raff has hit the nail on the head. Although the appeal involves the district court’s power to enjoin new security procedures adopted by the government at Guantánamo (the same genital search procedures that . . .
Read more »

Oral Argument Recap: The Bagram Habeas Cases

By and
Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Here’s a quick read-out from Tuesday’s oral argument in a trio of cases concerning detainees captured outside of Afghanistan, but eventually transferred to the custody of the U.S. military and held at a facility at Bagram airfield. The day involved, as Raffaela reported earlier, two separate arguments. The first merged the Al Maqaleh and Amanatullah . . .
Read more »

A Quibble Over Supplemental Authority in Hamad v. Gates

By
Monday, July 15, 2013 at 4:15 PM

It’s a battle over the latest case law in Hamad v. Gates,  a GTMO-related appeal now awaiting decision from the Ninth Circuit. After oral argument on June 5, the government noted certain supplemental authority: a recent—and, in the United States’s view, persuasive—district court case from the Eastern District of Virginia, Ameur v. Gates.  On Friday, the plaintiffs responded with a . . .
Read more »

Boumediene‘s Fifth Anniversary

By
Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 12:59 AM

Five years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the Constitution’s Suspension Clause “has full effect” at Guantánamo Bay, and that the review scheme provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was an inadequate substitute for the judicial review thus required by the Constitution. Boumediene thereby ushered in . . .
Read more »

Harold Koh Identifies Another Big Difference Between the Bush and Obama Administrations

By
Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM

From Harold Koh’s speech to the Oxford Union the other day: the first “obvious” difference between the Bush and Obama administrations is that “the Obama Administration has not treated the post-9/11 conflict as a Global War on Terror to which no law applies, in which the United States is authorized to use force anywhere, against anyone. Instead, it . . .
Read more »

Petitioner’s Further Briefing in GTMO Hunger Strike Dispute

By
Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 7:00 AM

Yesterday, pursuant to Judge Thomas Hogan’s recent order, lawyers for habeas petitioner Musa’ab Omar al-Madhwani filed a brief addressing the district court’s jurisdiction to hear al-Madhwani’s emergency challenge to the conditions of his confinement at Guantanamo. The detainee—who is taking part in an ongoing GTMO hunger strike—claims that detention facility personnel denied him potable water, . . .
Read more »

A Guide to Appellate and Collateral Review Under the Military Commissions Acts

By
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 2:42 PM

As the recent decisions by the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) in the Guantánamo military commission ACLU/media access cases suggests, there are a host of complicated and heretofore unresolved questions about the scope of appellate and collateral review of military commission trial court decisions. In the following post (and below the fold), I aim . . .
Read more »

Habeas, Due Process, and… Extradition?

By
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 6:48 PM

One of the more interesting structural constitutional questions to emerge from the post-9/11 detention litigation has been the previously under-explored relationship between the Constitution’s Suspension and Due Process Clauses–and the extent to which they might do separate work with regard to the scope of judicial review in executive detention cases. Thus, for example, in Boumediene, Justice Kennedy . . .
Read more »

Brief for the United States in Al-Janko

By
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM

The United States has filed its appellate brief in the case of Al-Janko v. Gates et al., a damages action brought by a former Guantanamo detainee against former government officers in their individual capacities.  (You can find more background here.)  The district court, in the person of Judge Richard Leon, had granted Al-Janko’s petition for a . . .
Read more »

The Obaydullah Cert. Petition: One More Shot for the Supreme Court…

By
Friday, March 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Amidst all the hubbub earlier this week, we neglected to note the filing of a new cert. petition in a Guantánamo habeas case–in Obaydullah v. Obama, filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Our coverage of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Obaydullah is available here (and Wells noted the developments earlier this week in the related but distinct Rule 60(b) . . .
Read more »

What to Make of Judge Pohl’s Ruling? Letter Filings in Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald

By
Friday, January 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM

What, if anything, do developments in the military commission case of United States v. al-Nashiri portend for Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, an ongoing, civil challenge to the accused’s war crimes prosecution?  The question arises in letters filed in the civil case, one by the United States last Friday, and another by al-Nashiri’s lawyers  today. Some quick background: . . .
Read more »

On the Constitution’s Presumptive Application in the 9/11 Case

By
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Judge James Pohl apparently has rejected the defense’s bid, in the 9/11 case, to presume (subject to rebuttal) the Constitution’s application to military commission proceedings. We don’t have the court’s order yet, but we do have this statement from James Connell III, lawyer for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi.  It provides, in full: Today, the military . . .
Read more »

Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters? Andrew Kent on the Quirin Case

By
Friday, January 4, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Andrew Kent writes in with the following guest post on his fascinating new article on Ex Parte Quirin. I asked Andrew to write up this piece, after reading an earlier draft of the underlying paper for a workshop last summer that Matt and Trevor organized at Columbia Law School. I found both the history Andrew . . .
Read more »

Readings: Andrew Kent on Ex Parte Quirin

By
Friday, January 4, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Andrew Kent (Fordham University School of Law) has posted a new paper to SSRN, “Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The Court’s Fateful Turn in Ex Parte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case.”  (66 Vanderbilt Law Review 101 (2013).) Professor Kent will be guest-posting about the article, so the Readings post will be brief, but we wanted . . .
Read more »

Appellant’s Reply Brief Filed in Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald

By
Saturday, December 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM

On Thursday, lawyers for Abd Al Rahim Hussein Al-Nashiri filed their reply brief in Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, a civil case now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Al-Nashiri, a defendant before the Guantanamo military commissions, had sued the commissions’ Convening Authority, retired Vice Admiral Bruce MacDonald in federal court. . . .
Read more »

District Court Rejects Interim Release of GTMO Detainee

By
Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM

What’s a habeas petitioner to do, if 1) current and former U.S. military officials believe that he no longer poses a significant threat, and that his law of war detention is no longer necessary; but 2) a Periodic Review Board (“PRB”) hearing—at which the petitioner could make his case for immediate release—has not yet been . . .
Read more »

Appellee Brief in Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald

By
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Vice Admiral (Retired) Bruce MacDonald, the Convening Authority for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, has filed his appellate brief in Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald.  That’s the civilian court lawsuit brought by commission defendant Abd Al Rahim Hussein Al-Nashiri, and now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (The district court . . .
Read more »