Lakhdar Boumediene, et al. v. George W. Bush / Khaled A. F. Al Odah, et al. v. United States of America
| Court |
United States Court of Appeal, District of Columbia, Unites States of America, United States |
| Case number |
05-5062 / 05-5064 |
| Decision title |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Decision date |
20 February 2007 |
| Parties |
- Lakhdar Boumediene et al.
- Khaled A. F. Al Odah et al.
- George W. Bush
|
| Other names |
|
| Categories |
Terrorism |
| Keywords |
enemy combatants, Guantanamo Bay, Habeas corpus, Military Commissions Act, Terrorism |
| Links |
|
| Other countries involved |
|
back to topSummary
In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in the bombing of the US Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Later, they were handed over to the US and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba).
In 2004, the men filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal action in which the petitioners challenge the legality of their detention). In 2005, the US District Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees do not have habeas corpus rights. The detainees appealed the decision. In the aftermath of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, the US Government requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the federal court no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Court of Appeals found that the Military Commissions Act indeed removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo detainees. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
back to topProcedural history
On 8 July 2004, Lakhdar Boumediene, Al Odah and others filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rasul v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court affirmed the detainee’s rights to challenge the legality of their detention.
In January 2005, the District Court ruled in Al Odah that the Guantanamo Detainees have a “fundamental right” to due process under the Fifth Amendment and they are protected under also under the Geneva Conventions. In Boumediene, the District Court ruled in the opposite way, finding that Guantanamo detainees have no habeas corpus rights.
The cases were consolidated and appealed. In the wake of the adoption of the Military Commissions Act, the US government moved to dismiss the petition of the Guantanamo detainees arguing that the federal courts no longer had jurisdiction.
back to topRelated developments
The detainees appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals. In June 2007, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the consolidated cases (Al Odah and Boumediene). Oral arguments were heard on 5 December 2007 (see also J. Shawl, 'Supreme Court Weighs Guantanamo Habeas Cases', Jurist, 5 December 2007).
On 12 June 2008, the United States Supreme Court held in Boumediene that the Guantanamo detainees do have habeas corpus rights before US federal courts indeed. See also M. Rosen-Molina, 'Supreme Court Rules Guantanamo Detainees Have Habeas Corpus Privilege', Jurist, 12 June 2008.
On 27 October 2008, the US District Court held that in order for a foreign national to be lawfully held as an “enemy combatant”, there must be a direct support for the hostilities against the US or its allies. See also D. Montgomery, Federal Judge Rules on Meaning of ‘Enemy Combatant’, Jurist, 28 October 2008.
On 20 November 2008, the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the release of five of the six petitioners.
On 15 May 2009, the US transferred Lakhdar Boumediene to France.
back to topLegally relevant facts
In October 2001, six men were arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina for their alleged involvement in a plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Five of the men were Algerian-Bosnian dual nationals, while the sixth held a permanent residency in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (p. 26)
On 20 January 2002, the Bosnian Supreme Court ordered their release from prison. Shortly after that, they were detained by the US forces and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba). (p. 26)
back to topCore legal questions
- Do federal courts have jurisdiction over petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by detainees held at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba)?
back to topSpecific legal rules and provisions
- § 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
- Detainee Treatment Act (DTA).
back to topCourt's holding and analysis
The Court concluded that the Military Commissions Act removed the jurisdiction of federal courts to consider habeas corpus applications, and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) provided an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus (pp. 24-25).
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismissed the detainee’s petitions on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction (p. 25).
back to topInstruments cited
back to topRelated cases
back to topAdditional materials
