| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Boumediene, et al., are apprehended abroad, and detained at Guantanamo. They were found to be enemy combatants at Combatant Status Review Tribunals. There was some petitioning for habeas review, and while those appeals were pending, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which purported to strip judicial jurisdiction from detainee habeas claims. |
| Posture: | Some petitioners were denied and some granted at the district level; cases consolidated during all the appealing. |
| Issue: | Does the Military Commissions Act § 7 strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas actions of this sort? If so, is that constitutional? |
| Holding: | Yes, and no. |
| Rule: | When the judicial power to issue a habeas corpus writ is
invoked, the judicial officer has to have adequate authority
to make a determination in light of the relevant law and
facts.
The protection of the non-suspension clause extends to GTMO. |
| Reasoning: | True, GTMO is not really part of the US, but it's way more like
the US than the prison was in Eisentrager. And the
procedures here fall farther short of our court proceedings
than did the proceedings for the defendants in Eisentrager
Habeas corpus is built right into Article I of the constitution, and is a fundamental thing for us. Congress can't override that. |
| Dicta: | Dissent (Scalia): This isn't helping the detainees-- it's just a power struggle with the other branches. We're putting the responsibility for dealing with the detainees into the hands of the branch of government that knows least about it. |