Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. George W. Bush et al.

Court	United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States
Case number	Civil Action No. 04-1254
Decision title	Memorandum Opinion
Decision date	29 March 2005
Parties	Mahmoad Abdah et al. George W. Bush et al.
Categories	Terrorism
Keywords	Guantanamo Bay, Habeas corpus, jurisdiction, preliminary injunction, Terrorism
Links	Memorandum Opinion: Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. George W. Bush et al.
Other countries involved	Pakistan Yemen

Summary

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national, was arrested in Pakistan together with other Yemeni citizens as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nationals in 2001 and 2002. They were transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002. In 2004, the Petitioners filed for writs of habeas corpus (a legal action requiring a court to determine the legality of the detention of an arrested person).

After partially rejecting a motion to dismiss submitted by the government of the United States, the District Court stayed the proceedings in order to give the possibility to the Petitioners to appeal the decision. In the meantime, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction (which is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts), requiring the US government to provide a 30 days’ notice of any intention to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba).

The District Court granted the motion, after being satisfied that a four-part test was fulfilled. This test required the Court to balance four relevant factors, namely: (a) the irreparable injury to the Petitioners in the absence of the injunction; (b) the likelihood of success of the habeas corpus motion; (c) the harm to the US government; and (d) the public interest.

The District Court ruled that the US government must give the lawyers of the detainees 30 days’ notice before transferring a detainee from Guantánamo Bay to the custody of foreign governments in order to allow the transfer to be challenged.

Procedural history

On 27 July 2004, the Petitioners of the present case filed for a writ of habeas corpus, “seeking to obtain a judicial determination of whether there is a factual basis for Respondent’s [i.e., the government’s] determination that they are enemy combatants, and asserting that the government has advanced no justification for their arrest, transportation and continued incarceration” (p. 3).

Pursuant to the Petitioners filing, the US government filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear their claims because all of the detainees were non-US nationals, and were being held outside the territory of the United States. On 31 January 2005, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion, “granting in part and denying in part Respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding that the detainees “have the fundamental right to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment [to the United States Constitution]” (p. 3). See also In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d at 463, 31 January 2005.

In order to grant the Petitioners the right to appeal the decision of 31 January 2005, the District Court, on 3 February 2005, ordered the stay of proceedings pending the resolution of the Petitioners’ appeal (p. 3). See also In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, No. 04-12544 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2005) (order).

In light of the stay of proceedings, the Petitioners filed for a preliminary injunction requiring the government to provide the Petitioners’ counsel with 30 days’ notice if it intends to remove the Petitioners from the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (p. 4).

Related developments

On 21 July 2010, the US District Court for Columbia ordered the release of Latif for lack of evidence. According to Judge Henry Kennedy, the US government failed to meet the evidence standard to prove that Latif was part of a terrorist organisation, concluding that his continued detention was unlawful.

On 14 October 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the District Court’s decision of 21 July 2010 with respect to the release of Latif. As a result, Latif remained in captivity at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

On 11 June 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal from Latif.

See also A. Liptak, 'Justices Reject Detainees’ Appeal, Leaving Cloud Over Earlier Guantánamo Ruling', The New York Times, 11 June 2012; and B. Mears, 'Supreme Court Declines Fresh Review of Guantanamo Detainee Issue', CNN, 11 June 2012.

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif died at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba on 8 September 2012.

See C. Savage, 'Military Identifies Guantánamo Detainee Who Died', The New York Times, 11 September 2011; see also United States Southern Command Public Affairs, Press Release, 'NEWS RELEASE: Joint Task Force Guantanamo Releases Deceased Detainee’s Identity', 11 September 2012.

Legally relevant facts

Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, also known as Allal Ab Aljallil Abd al Rahman, is a Yemeni national who was arrested in Pakistan, together with twelve other Yemeni nations. They were all arrested by the Pakistani authorities as part of a dragnet seizure of Yemeni nations in 2001 and 2002. The Petitioners contended that they have travelled to Pakistan for religious, medical and employment reasons. The Pakistani police transferred the Petitioners to the United States military, which transferred them to the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) in January 2002, where they were held as enemy combatants (p. 2).

The Detainees petitioned for writs of habeas corpus on 27 July 2004, seeking a judicial determination on the legality of their detention and arguing that there is no justification for their arrest, transportation and continued incarceration (p. 3).

Furthermore, the Petitioners argued that the “Respondents [i.e., the government] have contemplated or are contemplating removal of some or all Petitioners from Guantánamo to foreign territories for torture or indefinite imprisonment without due process of law … Fearing that any such transfer would also circumvent Petitioners’ right to adjudicate the legality of their detention, Petitioners seek a preliminary injunction requiring Respondents to provide Petitioners’ counsel with 30 days’ advance notice of any intended removal of Petitioners from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base” (pp. 3-4).

Core legal questions

Can the Petitioners’ motion seeking a preliminary injunction be granted?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Rule 23 of the US Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Court's holding and analysis

The merits of the ruling on the preliminary injunction was based on a four-part test, where the District Court examined: (a) the existence of an irreparable injury to the Petitioners, should they be transferred; (b) the likelihood of success of the habeas corpus proceedings; (c) the harm to the Respondents, caused by the injunction; and (d) the implications on the public interest of granting the preliminary injunction (p. 5). The District Court ruled that the “transfer of Petitioners without notice and leave of court is forbidden by [the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure] 23(a), which requires that “pending review of a decision in a habeas corpus proceeding commenced before a court . . . the person having custody of the prisoner must not transfer custody to another unless a transfer is directed in accordance with this rule”” (p. 8).

The District Court found that the “Petitioners satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and therefore grants their present motion” (p. 13). The Opinion ruled that the US must give the lawyers of the Detainees 30 days’ notice before transferring a detainee from Guantánamo Bay to the custody of foreign governments in order to allow the transfer to be challenged.

Instruments cited

US Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure of 1 July 1968.

Related cases

US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Serono Labs., Inc., v. Shalala et al., Nos. 97-5188, 97-5227, 27 october 1998;
Supreme Court of the United States, Rasul et al v. Bush et al., No. 03-334 (joined with no. 03-343), Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit, 28 June 2004;
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Cobell et al. v. Norton et al., Nos. 03-5262 and 04-5084, 3 December 2004;
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Mahmoad Abdah et al. v. Barack H. Obama et al., Civil Action No. 04-1254, Memorandum Opinion, 21 July 2010;
US Supreme Court of the United States, Latif, Adnan Farhan Abdul v. Obama, President of U.S., et al., No.11-1027, Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 11 June 2012.