Term: 2007
Docket: 06-1195
Boumediene v. Bush
- Pro
06-1195 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH DECISION BELOW: 476 F3d 981 THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING ARE GRANTED. THE ORDERS ENTERED APRIL 2, 2007, DENYING THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE VACATED. THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED. THE CASES ARE CONSOLIDATED AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. AS IT WOULD BE OF MATERIAL ASSISTANCE TO CONSULT ANY DECISION IN BISMULLAH, ET AL., V. GATES, NO. 06-1197, AND PARHAT, ET AL., V. GATES, NO. 06-1397, CURRENTLY PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING WILL BE SCHEDULED UPON THE ISSUANCE OF ANY DECISION IN THOSE CASES. CERT. GRANTED 6/29/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, validly stripped federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. 2. Whether Petitioners’ habeas corpus petitions, which establish that the United States government has imprisoned Petitioners for over five years, demonstrate unlawful confinement requiring the grant of habeas relief or, at least, a hearing on the merits. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 05-5062
In Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts. The case was brought by Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian national who had been detained without charge since 2002 based on an alleged plot to attack the U.S embassy there. The court's decision marked a significant setback for the Bush administration's approach towards detainee treatment and legal proceedings post-9/11 terrorist attacks. It rejected Congress' attempt to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantanamo Bay through the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, stating it violated Article One Section Nine of the Constitution which protects individuals from arbitrary imprisonment.
In the dissenting opinion for Boumediene v. Bush, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay represented an unprecedented expansion of judicial power. The dissenters believed that this ruling disregarded previous legal precedent and overstepped constitutional boundaries by intervening in matters of national security and foreign policy - areas traditionally reserved for the executive branch. They also expressed concern about potential negative implications on military operations abroad, as well as a possible influx of litigation from detained enemy combatants seeking similar protections under U.S law. Furthermore, they contended that adequate procedures were already in place through Congress’s Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) to review detainee status determinations without involving federal courts directly.
