Term: 2009
Docket: 08-1234
Jamal Kiyemba Et Al. v. Barack H. Obama, President Of The United States Et Al.
- Pro
08-1234 KIYEMBA V. OBAMA DECISION BELOW: 581 F. Supp.2d 33 ORDER OF 2/12/2010: THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE LETTER BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD BE THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THE DEVELOPMENTS DISCUSSED IN THE LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES ON FEBRUARY 3 AND 5 ON THE COURT’S GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE? CERT. GRANTED 10/20/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a federal court exercising its habeas jurisdiction, as confirmed by Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), has no power to order the release of prisoners held by the Executive for seven years, where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-5424
In the 2009 case of Jamal Kiyemba et al. v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States et al., seventeen Chinese Uighur detainees at Guantanamo Bay sought release into the United States after being cleared for release but unable to be repatriated due to fear of persecution in China and lack of third-party countries willing to accept them. The Supreme Court initially agreed to hear their case, which argued that federal courts had authority under habeas corpus law (the right against unlawful detention) to order their release into America when no other options were available. However, before arguments could take place, Switzerland offered asylum to two remaining detainees who hadn't already accepted offers from other nations like Palau or Bermuda. As a result, all petitioners now had places they could go outside Guantanamo; thus rendering moot their argument about needing entry into the US as a last resort option. The Supreme Court then dismissed this case as moot because there was no longer an active controversy requiring resolution - all petitioners either left Guantanamo or received offers for relocation elsewhere.
In the dissenting opinion for Jamal Kiyemba et al. v. Barack H. Obama, President of The United States et al., Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the court should not have dismissed the case as moot because it involved a significant constitutional question about executive power over immigration matters that could arise again in future cases. They believed that even though all petitioners had received at least one offer of resettlement outside China (their country of origin), they were still effectively detained since they feared persecution if returned to their home country and therefore refused these offers. The dissenting justices felt this situation raised important questions about whether habeas corpus or other legal protections apply to detainees who cannot be repatriated due to fear of torture or persecution, which remained unresolved with the dismissal.
