ACLU v. Mattis

Latest in ACLU v. Mattis


Oral Argument Summary: Doe v. Mattis

Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Doe v. Mattis, the case of a dual U.S.-Saudi citizen (John Doe) detained in Iraq by the U.S. military. Judges Sri Srinivasan and Robert Wilkins considered whether the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had erred in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the government to give 72 hours of notice before transferring Doe from U.S. custody. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson was also assigned to the panel but didn’t show up for the oral argument.


Document: Judge Orders Government Not to Transfer Detainee in Doe v. Mattis

Judge Tanya Chutkan of the D.C. federal district court issued an ordered in Doe v. Mattis on Jan. 18. Chutkan ordered the government not to transfer John Doe until Jan. 23, when the order suggests that the court will have ruled on Doe's pending motion for continued interim relief. The full order is included below:


A Primer on the Merits Issues in ACLU v. Mattis (the U.S. Citizen Enemy Combatant Case)

As readers are likely aware, there has finally been meaningful movement in the case of “John Doe,” an unnamed U.S. citizen who has been detained by the U.S. military in Iraq as an “enemy combatant” since mid-September. On Dec. 23, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the government to provide lawyers for the ACLU (who had filed a habeas petition on Doe’s behalf on Oct.


Document: District Court Memorandum Opinion in ACLU v. Mattis

Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the following Memorandum Opinion in ACLU v. Mattis that, among other things, denies the Defense Department's motion to dismiss and orders the Defense Department to "allow the ACLUF immediate and unmonitored access to the detainee for the sole purpose of determining whether the detainee wishes for the ACLUF to continue this action on his behalf."

Detention: Non-Guantanamo Habeas Litigation

ACLU v. Mattis and the Citizen Enemy Combatant in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

On Dec. 11, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia heard arguments in ACLU v. Mattis on the question whether the ACLU should be permitted to represent a United States citizen who is currently being detained as an enemy combatant in Iraq.


Documents: Government Response to Court Order in ACLU v. Mattis and Response Briefs

On Nov. 30, the Justice Department responded to D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan's order in ACLU v. Mattis for the government to say whether the unnamed American citizen detainee being held as an enemy combatant had requested counsel and whether he invoked his right to habeas corpus. The ACLU then filed a reponse brief. On Dec. 1, the Justice Department filed a response opposing the ACLU's brief. All three documents are below.

Subscribe to Lawfare