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.
Latest in ACLU v. Mattis
The questions that arise in the matter pending before Judge Tanya Chutkan.
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:
All you need to know about what's to come in the merits portion of the U.S. citizen enemy combatant’s habeas litigation.
The U.S. government has filed its response in John Doe and ACLU v. Mattis in response to the habeas filing we posted last week. You can read the full document here:
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."
If ACLU v. Mattis eventually reaches the underlying merits, the court will need to wrestle with the historical backdrop that informed ratification of the Suspension Clause and its operation through much of American history along with difficult questions going to the extraterritorial application of the United States Constitution.
The government's emerging position that it can prevent courts from addressing merits of the military detention of an unnamed U.S. citizen by declining indefinitely to identify him should be rejected—with nuance.
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.
The background and future prospects of the American Civil Liberties Union’s habeas petition on behalf of the unnamed U.S. citizen enemy combatant held in Iraq.