Munaf v. Geren
171 L. Ed. 2d 1, 553 U.S. 674, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4888 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Although federal courts have statutory habeas corpus jurisdiction over American citizens detained overseas by U.S. armed forces, the writ may not be used to enjoin the military from transferring such a citizen to a foreign sovereign for prosecution of crimes committed within that sovereign's territory.
Facts:
- Petitioner Shawqi Omar, an American-Jordanian citizen, voluntarily traveled to Iraq.
- In October 2004, U.S. military forces operating as part of the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I) captured Omar at his home in Baghdad, believing he was aiding al Qaeda in Iraq.
- Petitioner Mohammad Munaf, an American-Iraqi citizen, voluntarily traveled to Iraq to work as a guide and translator for Romanian journalists.
- After Munaf and the journalists were kidnapped and freed, MNF-I forces detained Munaf, believing he had orchestrated the kidnappings.
- Both Omar and Munaf were held in custody by U.S. military forces operating under a unified American command structure within the MNF-I.
- The MNF-I intended to refer both men to the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI) for criminal investigation and prosecution under Iraqi law.
Procedural Posture:
- In Omar's case, his family filed a habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which granted a preliminary injunction barring his transfer to Iraqi custody.
- The U.S. Government (appellant) appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (with Omar's family as appellee) affirmed the injunction.
- In Munaf's case, his family filed a habeas petition in the same District Court, which dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
- Munaf (appellant) appealed, and the D.C. Circuit (with the U.S. Government as appellee) affirmed the dismissal.
- The U.S. Government petitioned for a writ of certiorari in Omar's case, and Munaf petitioned for a writ of certiorari in his case.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May federal courts exercise their habeas corpus jurisdiction to prevent the U.S. military from transferring an American citizen, detained in a foreign country, to that country's authorities for criminal prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. Federal courts should not exercise their habeas corpus power to enjoin the transfer of an American citizen to a foreign sovereign for prosecution. First, the Court determined that federal courts have statutory habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) because the petitioners are American citizens held in the physical custody of American military forces who are subject to a U.S. chain of command. The Court distinguished its prior decision in Hirota v. MacArthur on the grounds that Hirota involved non-citizens and a tribunal not clearly under U.S. command. However, despite the existence of jurisdiction, the Court concluded that habeas relief is inappropriate. The writ of habeas corpus is governed by equitable principles, and its traditional function is to secure release from illegal custody, not to shelter individuals from prosecution by a sovereign nation. Iraq, as a sovereign, has exclusive jurisdiction to punish offenses committed within its borders. Granting the petitioners' request would impermissibly interfere with Iraq's sovereign authority. Allegations of potential mistreatment or torture are matters for the political branches to address through diplomatic means, not for judicial second-guessing of a foreign justice system.
Concurring - Justice Souter
Agreed. The holding that habeas provides no relief is correct but should be understood as limited to the specific circumstances of this case. These essential circumstances include that the petitioners voluntarily traveled to Iraq, are being held in the territory of an ally during ongoing hostilities, are being transferred for prosecution of crimes committed on that soil, and the State Department has made a determination that the receiving authority generally meets international standards. The Court's opinion appropriately reserves judgment on an extreme case where the Executive determines a detainee is likely to be tortured but decides to transfer him anyway. In such a case, or one where the probability of torture is well-documented, substantive due process might bar the government from consigning a citizen to torture.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens detained by the American military in foreign territories. It affirms that statutory habeas jurisdiction follows American citizens held by American forces, but severely curtails the practical remedies available under the writ. The ruling strongly reinforces principles of foreign sovereign immunity and comity, establishing that habeas cannot be used as a shield against foreign prosecution. By deferring to the Executive Branch on matters of foreign relations and assessments of foreign justice systems, the Court signals a high bar for judicial intervention in the transfer of detainees, even when claims of potential mistreatment are raised.
