Rasul v. Bush
542 U.S. 466 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
United States federal courts have jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated in a territory over which the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control, even if it does not have ultimate sovereignty.
Facts:
- Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the President authorized the use of military force against those responsible.
- The U.S. Armed Forces subsequently engaged in a military campaign in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and the Taliban regime.
- Petitioners, two Australian and twelve Kuwaiti citizens, were captured abroad during these hostilities.
- Since early 2002, the U.S. military has held the petitioners at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
- The United States occupies Guantanamo Bay pursuant to a 1903 lease agreement that grants it 'complete jurisdiction and control' over the area, while recognizing Cuba's 'ultimate sovereignty.'
- Petitioners alleged they were not combatants against the United States, had never engaged in terrorist acts, had not been charged with any wrongdoing, and had been denied access to counsel or any court or tribunal.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners, through relatives acting as next friends, filed various actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the legality of their detention.
- The District Court construed the actions as petitions for writs of habeas corpus and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager.
- Petitioners appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that aliens held in military custody outside U.S. sovereign territory lacked the 'privilege of litigation' in federal courts.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 courts have jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes. The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, confers jurisdiction on the District Court to hear petitioners' challenges to the legality of their detention. The government's reliance on Johnson v. Eisentrager is misplaced because its holding rested on a statutory interpretation of § 2241 that required a detainee's physical presence within a court's territorial jurisdiction, a premise derived from Ahrens v. Clark. However, the Court’s later decision in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky. explicitly overruled this premise, holding that habeas jurisdiction is proper as long as the court has jurisdiction over the detainee's custodian. Because the statutory predicate for Eisentrager has been removed, it does not control. Furthermore, the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes does not apply here because the U.S. exercises 'complete jurisdiction and control' over Guantanamo Bay, making the location functionally equivalent to U.S. territory for habeas purposes. This is consistent with the historical reach of the writ at common law, which extended to territories under the sovereign's practical control, not just formal territory.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The habeas statute does not extend to aliens detained by the United States military outside the sovereign borders of the United States. The Court irresponsibly overturns the half-century-old precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager, on which the military reasonably relied. The majority's assertion that Braden overruled Eisentrager's statutory predicate 'would not pass the laugh test,' as Braden dealt with a narrow, distinct issue of a state detainer and did not even mention Eisentrager. The plain text of § 2241, with its reference to courts acting 'within their respective jurisdictions,' presupposes territorial jurisdiction over the detainee, which is absent here. The majority's holding creates a breathtakingly broad rule that could allow any alien captured in combat anywhere in the world to sue in U.S. courts, thereby hampering the war effort and allowing enemies to 'call [a field commander] to account in his own civil courts.'
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. Federal courts have jurisdiction, but the analysis should follow the framework of Johnson v. Eisentrager rather than the majority's flawed reading of Braden. This case is distinguishable from Eisentrager based on two critical facts. First, Guantanamo Bay is a United States territory in every practical respect due to the 'unchallenged and indefinite control' the U.S. has long exercised over it, extending the 'implied protection' of the United States. Second, unlike the prisoners in Eisentrager who had been tried and convicted by a military commission, the Guantanamo detainees are being held indefinitely without any legal proceeding to determine their status. This indefinite detention without process weakens the government's claim of military necessity and aligns the situation with the traditional protective function of habeas corpus, thus justifying judicial review.
Analysis:
This landmark decision rejected the executive branch's assertion that it could create a jurisdiction-free zone for detaining foreign nationals by holding them at Guantanamo Bay. By extending the reach of federal habeas jurisdiction to this territory, the Court affirmed the judiciary's role in checking executive detention power, even during wartime. This ruling was a foundational case in the 'War on Terror' jurisprudence, opening the courthouse doors to hundreds of detainees and setting the stage for subsequent litigation over the substantive rights of detainees and the legality of military commissions.
Unlock the full brief for Rasul v. Bush