Jump to content

Boumediene v. Bush: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m added link
small excision, see talk
Line 27: Line 27:
| LawsApplied =
| LawsApplied =
}}
}}
'''''Boumediene v. Bush''''', [[Case citation|553 U.S. ___]] (2008), was a [[habeas corpus|writ of habeas corpus]] submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of [[Lakhdar Boumediene]], who is not a citizen of the United States but a naturalized citizen of [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]], currently being held in [[extrajudicial detention]] by the [[United States]] at the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]]s.<ref name=TheJurist20070227>{{cite web
'''''Boumediene v. Bush''''', [[Case citation|553 U.S. ___]] (2008), was a [[habeas corpus|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]], currently being held in [[extrajudicial detention]] by the [[United States]] at the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]]s.<ref name=TheJurist20070227>{{cite web
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/02/why-boumediene-was-wrongly-decided.php
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/02/why-boumediene-was-wrongly-decided.php
| title=Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided
| title=Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided

Revision as of 16:51, 15 June 2008

Template:Current court case

Boumediene v. Bush
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 2007
Decided June 12, 2008
Full case nameLakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners
v.
George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
Docket no.06-1195
Holding
Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts. 476 F.3d 981, reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceSouter, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer
DissentRoberts, joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito
DissentScalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), 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, currently being held in extrajudicial detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.[1][2][3] The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. The case challenged the legality of Boumediene’s detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006.[citation needed] Oral arguments on the combined case were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.[citation needed] On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

Justice Kennedy's majority decision

The majority found that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus review applies to persons held in Guantanamo and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory. [citation needed] If Congress intends to suspend the right, an adequate substitute must offer the prisoner a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate he is held pursuant to an erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law, and the reviewing decision-making must have some ability to correct errors, to assess the sufficiency of the government's evidence, and to consider relevant exculpating evidence. [citation needed] The court found that the petitioners had met their burden of establishing that Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.

The Court also concluded that the detainees are not required to exhaust review procedures in the court of appeals before pursuing habeas corpus actions in the district court. The decision struck down section 7 of the MCA, but left intact the Detainee Treatment Act and the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. [citation needed] In a concurring opinion, Justice Souter stressed the fact that the prisoners involved have been imprisoned for as much as six years. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia each wrote opinions for the four dissenters.[4]

Justice Souter's concurrence

Justice Scalia's dissent

Justice Robert's dissent

Background timeline

Date Event
November 2001
January 20 2002
2002, 2003, 2004
  • Friends and family of approximately 200 captives initiate habeas corpus submissions. These submissions work their way through the courts.
June 28 2004
  • Rasul v. Bush is the first habeas corpus submission to reach the United States Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court dismisses the argument that the Naval Base at Guantanamo is beyond the reach of US law.
  • The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacks the authority to deny captives access to the US justice system, and that the captives did have the right to initiate habeas corpus submissions.
  • The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch was obliged to provide the captives with an opportunity to hear and attempt to refute whatever evidence had caused them to have been classified as "enemy combatants". As a result the Department of Defense created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.
December 31 2005
  • The United States Congress passes the Detainee Treatment Act.
  • This act, sponsored by Senator John McCain, a former Prisoner of War who had been tortured in enemy custody, explicitly states that all captives held by the United States are protected against torture.
  • This act also restricted further captives from initiating habeas corpus submissions.
  • Existing habeas corpus submissions remain in the system.
July 27 2006
  • Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, another habeas corpus submissions, reaches the US Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch lacked the Constitutional authority to set up military commissions to try captives taken in the "war on terror". It rules that this authority properly lay with the United States Congress.
  • The charges against the ten captives who had been charged were quashed.
Fall 2006
  • The US Congress passes the Military Commissions Act, setting up Military Commissions similar to those that the Executive Branch had set up, retaining most of the features that had concerned critics.
    • The Commissions could still hear and consider "hearsay evidence".
    • Suspects would still be restricted from attempting to refute, or indeed even learning about, evidence against them that was classified as secret.
    • Evidence extracted from the suspect, or other witnesses, through the use of "extended interrogation techniques", would be permitted, so long as it was extracted prior to the passing of the Detainee Treatment Act in late 2005.
  • This act asserted that all outstanding habeas corpus submissions on behalf of the captives should be quashed.
February 20, 2007
  • A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals considers Lakmar Boumediene's habeas corpus submission, and upheld the Congress's authority to quash the outstanding habeas corpus submissions through the Military Commission Act.[5]
April 2, 2007
  • After a petition for a review of the Circuit Court decision, the Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ writ of certiorari, thereby declining to hear the case at that time.
June 29, 2007
August 24 2007
  • The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed an Amicus brief on behalf of Boumediene and al Odah.[7][8]
  • Over 20 supporting Amicus briefs were submitted simultaneously on behalf of Boumediene, including, the American Bar Association,[9] retired military officers, retired federal judges, former U.S. diplomats, a sitting Republican U.S. Senator, law professors and legal historians, Canadian, British and European Parliamentarians, the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), and domestic and international non-governmental organizations.[10]
October 9 2007
  • The United States government submits its opposition briefs for Boumediene.[10]
November 13 2007
  • The petitioner files its reply briefs.[10]
December 5 2007
  • Arguments begin before U.S. Supreme Court.[11]
June 12 2008
  • The Supreme Court announces its decision in the case.[12]

Amicus briefs

The Supreme Court has received over two dozen briefs of amicus curiae on the case. Twenty-two amicus briefs have been filed in support of the petitioners, Messrs. Boumediene and Al Odah, and four have been filed in support of the respondents, the Bush Administration.

The decision

Prior to the decision, SCOTUSblog suggested the Court would rule in favor of the government, because Justice Anthony Kennedy was assumed to be writing the majority opinion. Kennedy had supported the government's position in past cases that SCOTUSblog assumed would parallel this one. The author of previous positions favoring detainee habeas corpus petitions had been Justice John Paul Stevens.[13]

However, in the 5-4 opinion written by Kennedy released on June 12, 2008, the Court sided with Boumediene, upholding the detainees' Constitutional rights to seek remedies in civil courts as opposed to military ones.[14][15][16][17][18]

See also

References

  1. ^ Marjorie Cohn (February 27 2007). "Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided". The Jurist. Retrieved 2007-04-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Al Odah v United States". Center for Constitutional Rights. April 27 2005. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ a b "Lakhdar Boumediene, et al. v. George W. Bush -- docket". Oyez.org. Friday, August 24, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: The named reference "Oyez20070629" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf
  5. ^ "Lakhdat Boumedienne, detainee, Camp Delta, et al., appellants v. George W. Bush, President of the United Stated, et al., appellees" (PDF). United States Department of Justice. February 20, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Jeannie Shawl (Friday, June 29, 2007). "Supreme Court to hear Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases". The Jurist. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States -- Amicus brief". American Civil Liberties Union. August 24, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States -- Amicus brief" (PDF). American Civil Liberties Union. August 24, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ "Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioners" (PDF). American Bar Association. August 24, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ a b c "Al Odah v. United States". Center for Constitutional Rights. January, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Joan Biskupic (December 5 2007). "Justices grill attorneys in Gitmo case hearings". USA Today. Retrieved December 5. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Ben Winograd (June 12 2007). "Today's Opinions". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Text "6.12.08" ignored (help)
  13. ^ Who Could Be Writing 2007's Remaining Opinions?, SCOTUSblog, April 7, 2008
  14. ^ [1]
  15. ^ Mark Sherman (June 12 2008). "High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-06-12. The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) mirror
  16. ^ Mark Sherman (June 12 2008). "Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court". Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2008-06-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ Mark Sherman (June 12 2008). "High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again". Montorey Herald. Retrieved 2008-06-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ James Oliphant (June 12 2008). "Court backs Gitmo detainees". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2008-06-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) mirror

External links

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boumediene_v._Bush&oldid=219519831"