Al Odah, Khaled A.F. v. United States
192 A.L.R. Fed. 775, 321 F.3d 1134, 355 U.S. App. D.C. 189 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
United States federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and other claims brought by foreign nationals who were captured abroad during military hostilities and are detained in military custody at a location outside of United States sovereign territory. Constitutional protections, and the corresponding right to access federal courts, do not extend extraterritorially to such aliens.
Facts:
- Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress authorized the President to use military force in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban regime.
- During the ensuing military campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. and allied forces captured numerous foreign nationals from countries including Kuwait, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
- The captured individuals, including those on whose behalf Rasul, Al Odah, and Habib brought suit, denied being enemy combatants, with some claiming they were in the region for humanitarian work or personal travel.
- The United States military transferred these detainees to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and held them in military custody.
- The Guantanamo Bay base is operated by the United States under a long-term lease agreement with Cuba, which explicitly recognizes Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over the territory.
- The detainees were held without being formally charged with any crime and without access to legal counsel.
Procedural Posture:
- Family members acting as 'next friends' of the detainees filed three separate actions (a complaint and two petitions for writs of habeas corpus) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Bush and other officials.
- The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgments, injunctions, and writs of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of the detentions.
- The district court, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager, dismissed all claims with prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do United States federal courts have jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions and other legal claims filed on behalf of foreign nationals who were captured abroad during military hostilities and are now detained by the U.S. military at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba?
Opinions:
Majority - Randolph, Circuit Judge
No, United States federal courts do not have jurisdiction to consider these claims. The controlling precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager holds that aliens captured and held by the U.S. military outside the sovereign territory of the United States have no right to seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The critical factors from Eisentrager—that the prisoners were aliens, captured abroad, held abroad by the military, and had never been present in the United States—are all present in this case. The detainees' argument that Eisentrager applies only to adjudicated 'enemy aliens' is incorrect; the precedent's reasoning is based on the extraterritorial location of the aliens, not on their conviction status. Subsequent Supreme Court cases, such as Verdugo-Urquidez, have affirmed that constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment do not apply to aliens outside U.S. sovereign territory. Because the detainees lack constitutional rights, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts. Furthermore, Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign U.S. territory, as the lease with Cuba explicitly states Cuba retains 'ultimate sovereignty,' making U.S. control insufficient to establish jurisdiction. This lack of a 'privilege of litigation' bars not only their habeas claims but also their claims under the Alien Tort Act and other statutes.
Concurring - Randolph, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority's conclusion and write separately to provide two additional grounds for dismissing the non-habeas claims. First, the claims are barred by sovereign immunity. The Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply because the President is not an 'agency' and the actions of the military fall under the APA's exception for 'military authority exercised in the field in time of war.' Second, the military's decisions regarding the confinement of detainees are 'committed to agency discretion by law' under the APA and are therefore unreviewable, as there are no meaningful standards for a court to apply to such complex military judgments.
Analysis:
This decision interpreted Johnson v. Eisentrager broadly, establishing a strong jurisdictional barrier that prevented Guantanamo detainees from accessing the U.S. court system. By holding that U.S. control of Guantanamo Bay did not equate to sovereignty, the court effectively created a zone where the executive could detain foreign nationals without judicial oversight. This ruling significantly strengthened the executive branch's power in the 'war on terror' at the expense of judicial review. The decision's precedent was short-lived, as it was directly reversed by the Supreme Court two years later in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), which held that federal courts do have jurisdiction over habeas petitions from Guantanamo detainees.
