Boumediene v. Bush
128 S. Ct. 2229, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4887, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of exhaustion, federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will generally decline to review constitutional claims until petitioners have fully utilized all available statutory remedies, unless those remedies are proven to be inadequate or their process is unreasonably delayed by the government.
Facts:
- Lakhdar Boumediene and other foreign nationals were designated as 'enemy combatants' by the United States government following the September 11th attacks.
- These individuals were subsequently detained at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
- The detainees challenged the legality of their detention, asserting they were being held in violation of the U.S. Constitution and other laws.
- In response to litigation from detainees, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which established a specific, limited process for detainees to seek review of their status determinations in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Subsequently, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which sought to strip all federal courts of jurisdiction to hear writs of habeas corpus filed by alien enemy combatants.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Following the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, the government moved to dismiss the habeas petitions for lack of jurisdiction.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, held that the Military Commissions Act validly stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas petitions.
- The detainees (petitioners) filed petitions for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should the Supreme Court grant a writ of certiorari to decide the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 before the petitioners have exhausted the combatant status review procedures established by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005?
Opinions:
Statement respecting denial of certiorari - Justices Stevens and Kennedy
No. The Supreme Court should deny the petitions for certiorari at this time based on the traditional judicial practice of requiring the exhaustion of available remedies. The petitioners must first pursue the review process provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The Court notes, however, that the exhaustion doctrine does not require pursuing inadequate remedies. If the government unreasonably delays the DTA proceedings or otherwise prejudices the petitioners' ability to seek review, the Court may consider its jurisdiction through alternative means, such as the All Writs Act, to ensure the writ of habeas corpus is not compromised. This denial of certiorari expresses no opinion on the merits of the underlying constitutional questions.
Analysis:
This denial of certiorari, accompanied by the statement from Justices Stevens and Kennedy, served as a temporary deferral on a major constitutional question regarding the Suspension Clause and the rights of Guantanamo detainees. By insisting on the exhaustion of DTA remedies, the Court adopted a 'wait-and-see' approach, placing the onus on the executive branch to provide a fair and timely review process. The statement also acted as a significant warning shot to the government, signaling that the Court was monitoring the DTA process and would not hesitate to intervene if it proved to be a constitutionally inadequate substitute for habeas corpus, thereby setting the stage for the Court's eventual decision to grant review in this same case.
Unlock the full brief for Boumediene v. Bush