Rasul v. Bush
Encyclopedia
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466
(2004), is a landmark
United States Supreme Court
decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay
were wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 ruling on June 28, 2004, reversed a District Court
decision, which held that the Judiciary
had no jurisdiction
to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay. Justice John Paul Stevens
wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Sandra Day O'Connor
, David Souter
, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
, and Stephen Breyer
, with Anthony Kennedy
concurring. Justice Antonin Scalia
filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by William Rehnquist
and Clarence Thomas
. The claimant whose name the case bears, Shafiq Rasul
, was released before the decision was handed down.
(CCR) was the first organization to file two habeas corpus
petitions, Rasul v. Bush and Habib v. Bush, challenging the U.S. government’s practice of holding foreign nationals captured in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban regime and al-Qaida in detention indefinitely. The detainees had been designated enemy combatants and did not have access to counsel, the right to a trial or knowledge of the charges against them. The Supreme Court, over the administration’s objections, agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantánamo detainees, namely Rasul v Bush and al Odah v. Bush. The arguments were heard on April 20, 2004. In a ruling on June 28, 2004, the Court ruled that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, entitled the detainees to challenge the validity of their detention.
.
The US Military transferred Rasul, Asif Iqbal and David Hicks
, who denied voluntarily joining any terrorist forces, to Guantanamo Bay in December 2001. As noted by the District Court, they did not deny having fought for the Taliban, but claimed that if they did take up arms, it was only when being attacked and in self-defense. Rasul and Iqbal say they were with the Taliban because they were taken captive. Hicks is silent on the matter in court filings, but his father, in filing the brief, stated that he believed that his son had joined the Taliban forces.
The twelve Kuwait
is claimed that they were in Pakistan and Afghanistan giving humanitarian aid, and were seized by villagers seeking bounties. They were transferred to Guantanamo Bay starting in January 2002.
Mamdouh Habib
was arrested by Pakistani authorities on October 5, 2001, two days before the fighting began.
(release from unlawful imprisonment) filed on February 19, 2002 by Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul
of British citizenship, and David Hicks
of Australia
n citizenship. Their petition requested:
, an Australian citizen, filed a suit http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/sept11Article.asp?ObjID=3dRVtqS8iX&Content=92 very similar to Rasul on June 10, 2002. The Court dismissed it, on the same grounds as the other two, on August 8.
, as they were "plainly challeng[ing] the legality of their custody." This meant that jurisdiction would be considered for both cases as though they were asking for release from prison.
Citing Johnson v. Eisentrager
, 339 U.S. 763
(1950), in which the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison, the District Court ruled that U.S. courts only have jurisdiction in a territory where the U.S. has sovereignty
. Because the treaty with Cuba regarding Guantanamo Bay stated that Cuba technically has "complete sovereignty" (though, as the plaintiffs pointed out, the U.S. has all effective powers in the area), the court held, Guantanamo Bay could not be considered a sovereign territory of the United States and therefore foreign nationals could not be given a trial in the U.S.
ed together on August 8, 2002, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
. It affirmed the lower court's decision, stating there was no U.S. court that had jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay.
with no charges filed, along with three others. On the other hand, the government announced that it planned to charge Hicks and Habib before a military commission. Habib was later released.
had interesting and unique history with the key precedents cited in the opinion of the case. Much of the opinion was built around the Eisentrager ruling, which was based on Ahrens v. Clark
′s holding that petitioners invoking Habeas Corpus must direct their claim to the court that has jurisdiction where they are held: therefore, since Eisentrager's German detainees were in China and clearly no US court holds jurisdiction there, they could not file a Habeas motion. However, a later case, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, relaxed Ahrens' rule, thereby undercutting the logic used in Eisentrager. What is interesting about this line of reasoning is that neither parties to the case argued this to the court. It was made by Justice Stevens, who was uniquely suited to decide on this case as he was a law clerk for Justice Rutledge
and actually drafted the dissenting opinion in Ahrens. Stevens kept track of the impact of the Ahrens ruling as it was relied upon in Eisentrager and even later wrote a biography of Rutledge for a law review where he used Ahrens as an example of Rutledge's skill and care as a justice. It was with this inside knowledge of the history of the law surrounding the issues at question in Rasul that Stevens was able to craft such a detailed opinion relying upon such obscure but relevant precedent.
regarding the purpose of jurisdiction: "The Constitution requires jurisdiction — the Constitution requires that an American citizen who has the protection of the Constitution have some manner of vindicating his rights under the Constitution."
Justice Breyer
on whether to deny jurisdiction to citizens outside the U.S. "So what I'm thinking now, assuming that it's very hard to interpret Eisentrager, is that if we go with you, it has a virtue of clarity. There is a clear rule. Not a citizen outside the United States; you don't get your foot in the door. But against you is that same fact. It seems rather contrary to an idea of a constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check."
Justice Scalia on whether the courts or Congress are better suited to rewrite laws: "Can we hold hearings to determine the problems that are bothering you? I mean, we have to take your word for what the problems are. We can't call witnesses and see what the real problems are, can we, in creating this new, substantive rule that we're going to let the courts create? Congress could do all that, though, couldn't it? ...
If it wanted to change the habeas statute, it could make all sorts of refined modifications about issues that we know nothing whatever about because we have only lawyers before us, we have no witnesses, we have no cross-examination, we have no investigative staff. And we should be the ones, Justice Breyer suggests, to draw up this reticulated system to preserve our military from intervention by the courts."
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2004), is a landmark
Landmark decision
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law...
United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp
The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a detainment and interrogation facility of the United States located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The facility was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold detainees from the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq...
were wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 ruling on June 28, 2004, reversed a District Court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
decision, which held that the Judiciary
Judiciary
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes...
had no jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility...
to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay. Justice John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor is an American jurist who was the first female member of the Supreme Court of the United States. She served as an Associate Justice from 1981 until her retirement from the Court in 2006. O'Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981...
, David Souter
David Souter
David Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice and the first Jewish female justice.She is generally viewed as belonging to...
, and Stephen Breyer
Stephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
, with Anthony Kennedy
Anthony Kennedy
Anthony McLeod Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions...
concurring. Justice Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
and Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
. The claimant whose name the case bears, Shafiq Rasul
Shafiq Rasul
Shafiq Rasul is best known for being a detainee held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, which treated him an unlawful combatant. His detainee ID number was 86....
, was released before the decision was handed down.
Overview
In early 2002, the Center for Constitutional RightsCenter for Constitutional Rights
Al Odah v. United States:Al Odah is the latest in a series of habeas corpus petitions on behalf of people imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The case challenges the Military Commissions system’s suitability as a habeas corpus substitute and the legality, in general, of detention at...
(CCR) was the first organization to file two habeas corpus
Habeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
petitions, Rasul v. Bush and Habib v. Bush, challenging the U.S. government’s practice of holding foreign nationals captured in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban regime and al-Qaida in detention indefinitely. The detainees had been designated enemy combatants and did not have access to counsel, the right to a trial or knowledge of the charges against them. The Supreme Court, over the administration’s objections, agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantánamo detainees, namely Rasul v Bush and al Odah v. Bush. The arguments were heard on April 20, 2004. In a ruling on June 28, 2004, the Court ruled that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, entitled the detainees to challenge the validity of their detention.
Circumstances of capture
The various plaintiffs came to be in Guantanamo Bay by different routes, but were generally captured or arrested during the U.S. invasion of AfghanistanWar in Afghanistan (2001–present)
The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, as the armed forces of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Afghan United Front launched Operation Enduring Freedom...
.
The US Military transferred Rasul, Asif Iqbal and David Hicks
David Hicks
David Matthew Hicks is an Australian who was convicted by the United States of America Guantanamo Military Commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, on charges of providing material support for terrorism...
, who denied voluntarily joining any terrorist forces, to Guantanamo Bay in December 2001. As noted by the District Court, they did not deny having fought for the Taliban, but claimed that if they did take up arms, it was only when being attacked and in self-defense. Rasul and Iqbal say they were with the Taliban because they were taken captive. Hicks is silent on the matter in court filings, but his father, in filing the brief, stated that he believed that his son had joined the Taliban forces.
The twelve Kuwait
Kuwait
The State of Kuwait is a sovereign Arab state situated in the north-east of the Arabian Peninsula in Western Asia. It is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south at Khafji, and Iraq to the north at Basra. It lies on the north-western shore of the Persian Gulf. The name Kuwait is derived from the...
is claimed that they were in Pakistan and Afghanistan giving humanitarian aid, and were seized by villagers seeking bounties. They were transferred to Guantanamo Bay starting in January 2002.
Mamdouh Habib
Mamdouh Habib
Mamdouh Habib is an Egyptian born Australian Muslim best known for his extrajudicial detention in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba, on suspicion of involvement in terrorism....
was arrested by Pakistani authorities on October 5, 2001, two days before the fighting began.
Original filings
These cases were filed in the Washington, D.C., District Court and the court decided them together. Each of the filings alleged that the government had not allowed them to speak at all to friends, family or lawyers, and had not given them any hearing whatsoever on the question of whether they were in fact enemy combatants in the war.Rasul v. Bush
Rasul v. Bush http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/sept11Article.asp?ObjID=KVmAZt5qEe&Content=418 was a petition for a writ of habeas corpusHabeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
(release from unlawful imprisonment) filed on February 19, 2002 by Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul
Shafiq Rasul
Shafiq Rasul is best known for being a detainee held at Guantanamo Bay by the United States, which treated him an unlawful combatant. His detainee ID number was 86....
of British citizenship, and David Hicks
David Hicks
David Matthew Hicks is an Australian who was convicted by the United States of America Guantanamo Military Commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, on charges of providing material support for terrorism...
of Australia
Australia
Australia , officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is the world's sixth-largest country by total area...
n citizenship. Their petition requested:
- That they be released
- That they be allowed to have private, unmonitored conversations with their attorneys
- That interrogations cease until the trials were complete
Habib v. Bush
Mamdouh HabibMamdouh Habib
Mamdouh Habib is an Egyptian born Australian Muslim best known for his extrajudicial detention in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba, on suspicion of involvement in terrorism....
, an Australian citizen, filed a suit http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/sept11Article.asp?ObjID=3dRVtqS8iX&Content=92 very similar to Rasul on June 10, 2002. The Court dismissed it, on the same grounds as the other two, on August 8.
District Court's decision
The District Court dismissed the cases with prejudice on July 30, 2002, on grounds that it did not have jurisdiction because Guantanamo Bay is not a sovereign territory of the United States. It first ruled that the Odah petitioners were in fact asking for habeas corpusHabeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
, as they were "plainly challeng[ing] the legality of their custody." This meant that jurisdiction would be considered for both cases as though they were asking for release from prison.
Citing Johnson v. Eisentrager
Johnson v. Eisentrager
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 , was a major decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, where it decided that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison...
, 339 U.S. 763
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1950), in which the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison, the District Court ruled that U.S. courts only have jurisdiction in a territory where the U.S. has sovereignty
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided...
. Because the treaty with Cuba regarding Guantanamo Bay stated that Cuba technically has "complete sovereignty" (though, as the plaintiffs pointed out, the U.S. has all effective powers in the area), the court held, Guantanamo Bay could not be considered a sovereign territory of the United States and therefore foreign nationals could not be given a trial in the U.S.
Court of Appeals decision
The cases were appealAppeal
An appeal is a petition for review of a case that has been decided by a court of law. The petition is made to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision....
ed together on August 8, 2002, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a...
. It affirmed the lower court's decision, stating there was no U.S. court that had jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay.
Supreme Court
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on September 2, 2003, and heard on April 20, 2004.Release of Rasul and Iqbal
On March 9, 2004, two years after they were first detained, Rasul and Iqbal were released to the United KingdomUnited Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
with no charges filed, along with three others. On the other hand, the government announced that it planned to charge Hicks and Habib before a military commission. Habib was later released.
Court documents
Hague Justice Portal: Rasul et al. v. Bush et al., Court documentsQuestion of jurisdiction
The sole question before the Supreme Court in this case is whether foreign nationals in Guantanamo Bay may invoke habeas corpus (wrongful detainment) at all. Either U.S. citizenship or court jurisdiction is necessary for this invocation, and since the detainees are not citizens, U.S. court jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay was at issue. According to the U.S. treaty with Cuba over Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. has "complete jurisdiction" over the base, but Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty." The government alleges that the fact that the treaty says this implies that the courts have no jurisdiction; the detainees argue that regardless of what the treaty says, the U.S. has full legal control in the area and should have jurisdiction.Stevens' role
Justice StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
had interesting and unique history with the key precedents cited in the opinion of the case. Much of the opinion was built around the Eisentrager ruling, which was based on Ahrens v. Clark
Ahrens v. Clark
Ahrens v. Clark, was a United States Supreme Court case that denied a federal district court jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus if the person detained is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the petition is filed. The 6-3 ruling was handed down on June 21, 1948,...
′s holding that petitioners invoking Habeas Corpus must direct their claim to the court that has jurisdiction where they are held: therefore, since Eisentrager's German detainees were in China and clearly no US court holds jurisdiction there, they could not file a Habeas motion. However, a later case, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, relaxed Ahrens' rule, thereby undercutting the logic used in Eisentrager. What is interesting about this line of reasoning is that neither parties to the case argued this to the court. It was made by Justice Stevens, who was uniquely suited to decide on this case as he was a law clerk for Justice Rutledge
Wiley Blount Rutledge
Wiley Blount Rutledge, Jr. was an American educator, lawyer, and justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.-Early life:...
and actually drafted the dissenting opinion in Ahrens. Stevens kept track of the impact of the Ahrens ruling as it was relied upon in Eisentrager and even later wrote a biography of Rutledge for a law review where he used Ahrens as an example of Rutledge's skill and care as a justice. It was with this inside knowledge of the history of the law surrounding the issues at question in Rasul that Stevens was able to craft such a detailed opinion relying upon such obscure but relevant precedent.
Oral arguments
During the oral arguments the following points came up:- Many of the Justices' questions indicated a belief that Johnson v. Eisentrager was immaterial to the jurisdictional question at hand, while the government argued that it was material. Justice StevensJohn Paul StevensJohn Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
went further to note that the Ahrens v. Clark decision, on which Eisentrager case was decided, had since been largely reversed, and thus relevant parts of Eisentrager may no longer apply. - Justice SouterDavid SouterDavid Hackett Souter is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He served from 1990 until his retirement on June 29, 2009. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush to fill the seat vacated by William J...
noted that the ability of a U.S. citizen to get a trial may necessarily imply that the court has jurisdiction in that geographic area, since jurisdiction is largely a geographic and sovereignty matter. Since the government has said it would not challenge habeas corpus by a U.S. citizen in Guantanamo Bay, this could establish jurisdiction in the area. - There was some concern in the court that there is a gray area where certain types of cases would fall through the cracks, as it were, because no one has real jurisdiction except the U.S. military. On the other hand, Justice ScaliaAntonin ScaliaAntonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
noted, it may be possible, and better, for Congress to remedy that situation, as they have deliberative powers the court does not.
Quotes
Justice ScaliaAntonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
regarding the purpose of jurisdiction: "The Constitution requires jurisdiction — the Constitution requires that an American citizen who has the protection of the Constitution have some manner of vindicating his rights under the Constitution."
Justice Breyer
Stephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
on whether to deny jurisdiction to citizens outside the U.S. "So what I'm thinking now, assuming that it's very hard to interpret Eisentrager, is that if we go with you, it has a virtue of clarity. There is a clear rule. Not a citizen outside the United States; you don't get your foot in the door. But against you is that same fact. It seems rather contrary to an idea of a constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check."
Justice Scalia on whether the courts or Congress are better suited to rewrite laws: "Can we hold hearings to determine the problems that are bothering you? I mean, we have to take your word for what the problems are. We can't call witnesses and see what the real problems are, can we, in creating this new, substantive rule that we're going to let the courts create? Congress could do all that, though, couldn't it? ...
If it wanted to change the habeas statute, it could make all sorts of refined modifications about issues that we know nothing whatever about because we have only lawyers before us, we have no witnesses, we have no cross-examination, we have no investigative staff. And we should be the ones, Justice Breyer suggests, to draw up this reticulated system to preserve our military from intervention by the courts."
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Ex parte MilliganEx parte MilliganEx parte Milligan, , was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was also controversial because it was one of the first cases after the end of the American Civil...
- Ex parte QuirinEx parte QuirinEx parte Quirin, , is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States...
- Johnson v. EisentragerJohnson v. EisentragerJohnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 , was a major decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, where it decided that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison...
- Rumsfeld v. PadillaRumsfeld v. PadillaRumsfeld v. Padilla, , was a United States Supreme Court case, in which José Padilla sought habeas corpus relief against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as a result of his detainment as an "unlawful combatant."...
- Hamdi v. RumsfeldHamdi v. RumsfeldHamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy...
- Al Odah v. United StatesAl Odah v. United StatesAl Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention, without charge, of Guantanamo detainees. The case is in many ways a continuation of the landmark Center for Constitutional Rights case Rasul v....
- Boumediene v. BushBoumediene v. BushBoumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba...
- Munaf v. GerenMunaf v. GerenMunaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 , is a United States Supreme Court case where the court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, , extends to U.S...
External links
- Center for Constitutional Rights (New York City-based legal non-profit) webpage with detailed and updated information
- Full text of the Supreme Court decision from Findlaw
- Summary of the case and Supreme Court decision from Oyez
- Supreme Court Decision goes against Bush
- Briefs and papers filed for Rasul v. Bush
- information about the filing of the brief by CCR
- Duke Law School, Detail of the case and a commentary