Law Commons^™

We’Ll Protect You! Oh, Wait, But Not You. Or You, You, Or You: The Consequences Of The Court’S Major Undertaking In Department Of Homeland Security V. Thuraissigiam, Jae Lynn Huckaba

University of Miami Law Review

For centuries, the writ of habeas corpus has been used to test the legality of restraints on a person’s freedom. The Founders, recognizing the significance of the protection, incorporated the writ into the Suspension Clause of our Constitution. In the last century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that noncitizens may invoke the Suspension Clause. Courts, especially in the immigration context, also expanded the definition of “in custody” for the purpose of habeas corpus to included non-detained persons in removal proceedings. The Supreme Court has departed from such precedent and gave new meaning to habeas corpus in the immigration context—a …

Boumediene V. Bush: Flashpoint In The Ongoing Struggle To Determine The Rights Of Guantanamo Detainees, Michael J. Anderson

Maine Law Review

Following the harrowing events of September 11, 2001, and pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed soon thereafter by Congress, the United States Armed Forces began capturing and detaining individuals at the Naval Air Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The choice of where to house these detainees was not random. Internal memoranda from the Justice Department reveal that the Naval Base was selected as a means of avoiding any legal entanglements that might ensue from such imprisonment. What resulted was what some commentators have called a “legal black hole” at Guantanamo, a place where any individual …

Hamad V. Gates And The Continuing Interpretation Of Boumediene: A Note On 732 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2013), Paul Blenz

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

A particularly prevalent type of claims in post-Boumediene cases are Bivens claims by detainees. One such case is Hamad v. Gates. Hamad represents a typical claim made by such detainees, and is the focus of this note. In Hamad, the Ninth Circuit held that a statute that had previously thought to be entirely overruled by Boumediene actually survived. This statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e), stemmed from years of back-and-forth debate between the Supreme Court and Congress. The result of this conflict is still unsettled. The main issue is whether the Court’s primary concern in overruling the jurisdiction-stripping statutes of Congress …

Newsroom: Closing Guantanamo Isn't Enough 03-14-2016, Jared Goldstein

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Detention Status Review Process In Transnational Armed Conflict: Al Maquleh V. Gates, And The Parwan Detention Facility, Jody M. Prescott

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This article will first set out a brief history and description of the airfield at Bagram and the detention facilities there. Second, it will explore the standards under international law and the implement ation of national regulations by which the detention status of individuals detained by U.S. military forces is determined, when such individuals may be released from detention, and the significance of the evolving concept of transnational armed conflict to these determinations. Third, it will review the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Boumediene, explore the Court‘s analysis in reaching its decision, and identify what the Court found to be …

A Foucauldian Call For The Archaeological Excavation Of Discourse In The Post-Boumediene Habeas Litigation, Jonathan David Shaub

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The March Of Judicial Cosmopolitanism And The Legacy Of Enemy Combatant Case Law, Madalina Lulia Sontrop

LLM Theses

This thesis explores the concept of judicial cosmopolitanism and its prevalence in enemy combatant case law. The author draws upon the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan law to describe judicial cosmopolitanism as form of legal discourse through which judges show a willingness to extend constitutional protections based on a contemporary, functional understanding of sovereign jurisdiction. The purpose of this work is to address the correlation between enemy combatant jurisprudence and the aforementioned understanding of judicial cosmopolitanism. It is argued that a march of judicial cosmopolitanism developed early in enemy combatant cases, and that it came to a …

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

Legal Affairs: Dreyfus, Guantánamo, And The Foundation Of The Rule Of Law, David Cole

Touro Law Review

Analogous to the Dreyfus affair, America's reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, subverted the rule of law to impose penalties on those it viewed as a threat. There are lessons to be learned from both the Dreyfus affair and America's reaction to September 11, 2001.

Human Rights Litigation And The National Interest: Kiobel'S Application Of The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality To The Alien Tort Statute, Jonathan Hafetz

Maryland Journal of International Law

No abstract provided.

The October 2008 Term: First Amendment And Then Some, Burt Neuborne

Touro Law Review

Liberals must acknowledge a dirty little secret about American constitutional law; a secret that the Warren Court made apparent, though it had existed from the day John Marshall asserted the power of judicial review in a Constitution that says nothing about it. The secret is that there is no serious theory explaining or justifying what courts actually do when they strike down a statute as unconstitutional.

The Warren years were enormously important in moving the country forward. I do not know what we would have done without the wisdom and courage of the Court. But when you start looking for …

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Touro Law Review

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

Habeas Corpus, Protection, And Extraterritorial Constitutional Rights, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This short essay is an exchange with Professor Steve Vladeck's about my Article entitled: Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court’s Misreading of the Insular Cases, 97 Iowa Law Review 101 (2011). My Article showed that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush relied on a demonstrably incorrect understanding of key precedents known as the Insular Cases, which arose from actions of the United States military and the new civil governments of the islands acquired by the United States at the turn of the twentieth century — Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, and for a time Cuba. This reply …

Do Boumediene Rights Expire?, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

In 2008, Guantanamo detainees won a landmark victory in Boumediene v. Bush, which held that the Congress and the President could not prevent the detainees from accessing the courts to seek release via habeas corpus. The Court decided that persons claiming to be innocent civilians deserved a day in court, even though they were noncitizens held by the U.S. military as enemy combatants on foreign territory. The Court applied a fact-specific test that granted habeas rights to noncitizens outside the United States only when a balance of factors — including citizenship, enemy status, the nature of status review procedures, the …

Understanding The Exceptional And Dynamic Nature Of Boumediene Rights To Court Access, Andrew Kent

Faculty Scholarship

This short piece replies to Professor Steve Vladeck's comments on my essay 'Do Boumediene Rights Expire?' 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. Pennumbra 20 (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2166103. In this reply, I further develop the argument that Boumediene rights to court access may have expired for those Guantanamo detainees determined through habeas litigation to be enemy fighters; and whether these judicially-confirmed enemy fighters have continuing rights court access under Boumediene goes to the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that the Obama administration's concession of continued court access is inoperative and federal courts must sua sponte raise and decide the issue.

Xvi Litigating How We Fight, Ashley S. Deeks

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

Who May Be Held? Military Detention Through The Habeas Lens, Robert M. Chesney

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

Rights Beyond Borders, Chimene I. Keitner

Chimene I Keitner

The Inconvenience Of A “Constitution [That] Follows The Flag … But Doesn’T Quite Catch Up With It”: From Downes V. Bidwell To Boumediene V. Bush, Pedro A. Malavet

UF Law Faculty Publications

Boumediene v. Bush, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2008, granted habeas corpus rights, at least for the time being, to the persons detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The majority partially based its ruling on the doctrine of the Insular Cases, first set forth in the 1901 decision in Downes v. Bidwell. Additionally, the four dissenting justices agreed with the five in the majority that the plurality opinion of Justice Edward Douglass White in Downes – as affirmed by a unanimous court in 1922 in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico – is still the dominant …

Bagram, Boumediene, And Limited Government, Robert Knowles

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Bringing The Spies In From The Cold: Legal Cosmopolitanism, And Intelligence Under The Laws Of War, Peyton A. Cooke

Peyton A. Cooke

Recently, as never before, intelligence operations have come under international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court has handed down the Hamdan and Boumediene decisions; President Obama has required the CIA and other interrogators to abide by Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 standards for all interrogations; district courts have declared stringent law of war criteria for overseas detentions; the Executive has applied the laws of war to terrorist targeting; and the private groups which have initiated this litigation, and pressed for these changes, continue to work for even more reform. This paper addresses the roots and effects of such changes. It begins …

The Inconvenience Of A “Constitution [That] Follows The Flag ... But Doesn’T Quite Catch Up With It”: From Downes V. Bidwell To Boumediene V. Bush, Pedro A. Malavet

Pedro A. Malavet

Boumediene v. Bush, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2008, granted habeas corpus rights, at least for the time being, to the persons detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The majority partially based its ruling on the doctrine of the Insular Cases, first set forth in the 1901 decision in Downes v. Bidwell. Additionally, the four dissenting justices agreed with the five in the majority that the plurality opinion of Justice Edward Douglass White in Downes —as affirmed by a unanimous court in 1922 in Balzac v. People of Porto Rico— is still the dominant interpretation of …

De-Cloaking Torture: Boumediene And The Military Commissions Act, Alan W. Clarke

San Diego International Law Journal

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) marked the high tide and endgame for hiding torture. It's unraveling did more to uncover the Bush administration's secret interrogation practices than did the political change in Washington. International and domestic backlash against the government's embrace of harsh interrogation techniques, frequently rising to the level of torture, also played a role. However, the Supreme Court's decisions ending in Boumediene v. Bush played the decisive role. Boumediene, and the Supreme Court decisions that led up to it, made inevitable that which politics had left contingent and reversible. It also provided legal and political cover.

Boumediene V. Bush And The New Common Law Of Habeas, Baher Azmy

Baher Azmy

In Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court issued yet another sharp rebuke of the Bush Administration’s wartime detention practices. In ruling that the protections of the Suspension Clause reach extraterritorially to Guantanamo (and perhaps beyond) and striking down the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Court went significantly farther than had the triad of prior enemy combatant cases – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Indeed, for the first time in its history, the Court invalidated the collaborative efforts of the political branches during wartime.

In so doing, Boumediene elevated the judiciary …

The Long War, The Federal Courts, And The Necessity/Legality Paradox, Stephen I. Vladeck

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Terrorist Detention: Directions For Reform, Benjamin J. Priester

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Boumediene And Lawfare, Tung Yin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rights, Remedies, & Habeas Corpus -- The Uighurs, Legally Free But Actually Imprisoned, Caprice L. Roberts

Caprice L. Roberts

For more than seven years, the Uighurs – Turkish Muslims who fled persecution in China only to be sold by Pakistani officials to the U.S. military for a bounty – have languished in the detainment facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Early on, the U.S. government admitted that the Uighurs are not enemy combatants. This summer, four Uighurs finally received extrajudicial relief and now reside in Bermuda; five secured release to Albania in 2006. Thirteen Uighurs remain confined at Guantánamo with their legal issues unresolved. Boumediene v. Bush extends the privilege of habeas corpus to detainees held in the U.S. Navy …

From Downes V. Bidwell To Boumediene V. Bush: "The Constitution Follows The Flag ... But It [Still] Doesn't Quite Catch Up With It", Pedro A. Malavet

Pedro A. Malavet

Boumediene v. Bush, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2008, granted habeas corpus rights, at least for the time being, to the persons detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. The majority partially based its ruling on the doctrine of the Insular Cases, first set forth in the 1901 decision in Downes v. Bidwell. Indeed, the court was unanimous that the plurality opinion of Justice Edward Douglass White in Downes is still the dominant interpretation of the Constitution’s Territorial Clause, abandoning the rule set forth in Dred Scott v. Sanford. This article provides historical context and analysis of …

Habeas Corpus Writ Of Liberty, Boumediene And Beyond, Scott J. Shackelford

Cleveland State Law Review

This book review focuses on Robert Walker's Habeas Corpus Writ of Liberty: English and American Origins and Development.