Boumediene
v. Bush
553 U.S. ___ (2008)
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/06-1195.html
Oral
arguments may be found at: http://www.oyez.org
Vote: 5 (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens)
4 (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas)
Opinion of
the Court: Kennedy
Concurring
opinion: Souter
Dissenting
opinions: Roberts, Scalia
[Please
consult case excerpts and the discussion of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) for more information on Òenemy combatants,Ó
the Military Commissions Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act.]
The United
States captured Lakhdar Boumediene
(and other petitioners whose cases were joined with this one) in Afghanistan
and detained him at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba after a Combatant Status Review
Tribunal (CSRT) designated him an enemy combatant. Maintaining that he had not
been a member of al Qaeda or the Taliban, Boumediene
requested a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention. The district
court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction (because Guantanamo is
outside of sovereign U.S. territory) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia affirmed.
The D.C.
Circuit read the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) to strip the
jurisdiction of all federal courts from hearing habeas applications from
detainees who had been deemed enemy combatants, and so the court refused to
hear the case. Appealing to the Supreme Court, Boumediene
argued that the system to review detaineesÕ status established by the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) was not an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.
Because the suspension clause of Article 1, Section 9 states that the
ÒPrivilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in
Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,Ó Boumediene urged the justices to rule that the MCA was
unconstitutional.
JUSTICE
KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
In deciding
the constitutional questions now presented we must determine whether
petitioners are barred from seeking the writ or invoking the protections of the
Suspension Clause either because of their status . . . as enemy combatants, or
their physical location . . . at Guantanamo Bay. The Government contends that
noncitizens designated as enemy combatants and detained in territory located
outside our NationÕs borders have no constitutional rights and no privilege of
habeas corpus. Petitioners contend they do have cognizable constitutional
rights and that Congress, in seeking to eliminate recourse to habeas corpus as
a means to assert those rights, acted in violation of the Suspension Clause. .
. .
The Framers
viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and
they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that
freedom. Experience taught, however, that the common-law writ all too often had
been insufficient to guard against the abuse of monarchial power. That history
counseled the necessity for specific language in the Constitution to secure the
writ and ensure its place in our legal system. . . .
. . . [T]he
Government says the Suspension Clause affords petitioners no rights because the
United States does not claim sovereignty over the place of detention.
Guantanamo
Bay is not formally part of the United States. And under the terms of the lease
between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retains Òultimate sovereigntyÓ over
the territory while the United States exercises Òcomplete jurisdiction and
control.Ó Under the terms of the 1934 Treaty, however, Cuba effectively has no
rights as a sovereign until the parties agree to modification of the 1903 Lease
Agreement or the United States abandons the base. . . .
We . . . do
not question the GovernmentÕs position that Cuba, not the United States,
maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense of the term, over
Guantanamo Bay. But this does not end the analysis. Our cases do not hold it is
improper for us to inquire into the objective degree of control the Nation
asserts over foreign territory. As commentators have noted, Ò Õ[s]overeigntyÕ is a term used in many senses and is much
abused.Ó . . . Indeed, it is not altogether uncommon for a territory to be
under the de jure sovereignty of one nation, while under the plenary control,
or practical sovereignty, of another. . . . [W]e take notice of the obvious and
uncontested fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction
and control over the base, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory.
. . .
. . .
[Former] decisions undermine the GovernmentÕs argument that, at least as
applied to noncitizens, the Constitution necessarily stops where de jure
sovereignty ends. . . .
In a series
of opinions later known as the Insular Cases, the Court addressed whether the
Constitution, by its own force, applies in any territory that is not a State.
The Court held that the Constitution has independent force in these
territories, a force not contingent upon acts of legislative grace. . . .
The GovernmentÕs
formal sovereignty-based test raises troubling separation-of-powers concerns as
well. The political history of Guantanamo illustrates the deficiencies of this
approach. The United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control
of the bay for over 100 years. . . . Yet the GovernmentÕs view is that the
Constitution had no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the
United States disclaimed sovereignty in the formal sense of the term. The
necessary implication of the argument is that by surrendering formal
sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the
same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory
back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to
govern without legal constraint.
Our basic
charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress
and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not
the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States
acts outside its borders, its powers are not Òabsolute and unlimitedÓ but are
subject Òto such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.Ó Abstaining
from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one
thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution
on or off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this CourtÕs
recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to
the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our
tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the
President, not this Court, say Òwhat the law is.Ó
These
concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the
cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable
mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers. The test for determining the
scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose
power it is designed to restrain. . . .
. . . It is
true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by
our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure
sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us
lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by
executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September
11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American
history. The detainees, moreover, are held in a territory that, while
technically not part of the United States, is under the complete and total
control of our Government. Under these circumstances the lack of a precedent on
point is no barrier to our holding.
We hold that
Art. I, ¤9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If
the privilege of habeas corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us,
Congress must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension Clause.
This Court may not impose a de facto suspension by abstaining from these
controversies. The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of the writ;
and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not argued that it is.
Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to
challenge the legality of their detention.
In light of
this holding the question becomes whether the statute stripping jurisdiction to
issue the writ avoids the Suspension Clause mandate because Congress has
provided adequate substitute procedures for habeas corpus. The Government
submits there has been compliance with the Suspension Clause because the DTA
review process in the Court of Appeal, provides an adequate substitute. . . .
To the
extent any doubt remains about CongressÕ intent, the legislative history
confirms what the plain text strongly suggests: In passing the DTA Congress did
not intend to create a process that differs from traditional habeas corpus
process in name only. It intended to create a more limited procedure.
It is
against this background that we must interpret the DTA and assess its adequacy
as a substitute for habeas corpus. . . .
We do not
endeavor to offer a comprehensive summary of the requisites for an adequate
substitute for habeas corpus. We do consider it uncontroversial, however, that
the privilege of habeas corpus entitles the prisoner to a meaningful
opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to Òthe erroneous
application or interpretationÓ of relevant law. And the habeas court must have
the power to order the conditional release of an individual unlawfully
detained--though release need not be the exclusive remedy and is not the
appropriate one in every case in which the writ is granted. These are the
easily identified attributes of any constitutionally adequate habeas corpus
proceeding. But, depending on the circumstances, more may be required. . . .
To determine
the necessary scope of habeas corpus review, therefore, we must assess the CSRT
process, the mechanism through which petitionersÕ designation as enemy
combatants became final. . . .
Petitioners
identify what they see as myriad deficiencies in the CSRTs.
The most relevant for our purposes are the constraints upon the detaineeÕs
ability to rebut the factual basis for the GovernmentÕs assertion that he is an
enemy combatant. As already noted, at the CSRT stage the detainee has limited
means to find or present evidence to challenge the GovernmentÕs case against
him. He does not have the assistance of counsel and may not be aware of the
most critical allegations that the Government relied upon to order his
detention. The detainee can confront witnesses that testify during the CSRT
proceedings. But given that there are in effect no limits on the admission of
hearsay evidence--the only requirement is that the tribunal deem the evidence
Òrelevant and helpful,Ó--the detaineeÕs opportunity to question witnesses is
likely to be more theoretical than real.
The
Government defends the CSRT process, arguing that it was designed to conform to
the procedures suggested by the plurality in Hamdi
[v. Rumsfeld, 2004]. Setting aside the fact that the
relevant language in Hamdi did not garner a majority
of the Court, it does not control the matter at hand. None of the parties in Hamdi argued there had been a suspension of the writ. . . .
Accordingly, the plurality concentrated on whether the Executive had the
authority to detain and, if so, what rights the detainee had under the Due
Process Clause. . . . [T]he Court had no occasion to define the necessary scope
of habeas review, for Suspension Clause purposes, in the context of enemy
combatant detentions. . . .
. . . [W]e
agree with petitioners that, even when all the parties involved in this process
act with diligence and in good faith, there is considerable risk of error in
the tribunalÕs findings of fact. . . . And given that the consequence of error
may be detention of persons for the duration of hostilities that may last a
generation or more, this is a risk too significant to ignore. . . .
We now
consider whether the DTA allows the Court of Appeals to conduct a proceeding
meeting these standards. . . .
The absence
of a release remedy and specific language allowing AUMF [Authorization for Use
of Military Force] challenges are not the only constitutional infirmities from
which the statute potentially suffers, however. The more difficult question is
whether the DTA permits the Court of Appeals to make requisite findings of
fact. The DTA enables petitioners to request ÒreviewÓ of their CSRT
determination in the Court of Appeals, but the ÒScope of ReviewÓ provision
confines the Court of AppealsÕ role to reviewing whether the CSRT followed the
Òstandards and proceduresÓ issued by the Department of Defense and assessing
whether those Òstandards and proceduresÓ are lawful. Among these standards is
Òthe requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence . . . allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor
of the GovernmentÕs evidence.Ó
Assuming the
DTA can be construed to allow the Court of Appeals to review or correct the CSRTÕs factual determinations, as opposed to merely
certifying that the tribunal applied the correct standard of proof, we see no
way to construe the statute to allow what is also constitutionally required in
this context: an opportunity for the detainee to present relevant exculpatory
evidence that was not made part of the record in the earlier proceedings.
On its face
the statute allows the Court of Appeals to consider no evidence outside the
CSRT record. In the parallel litigation, however, the Court of Appeals
determined that the DTA allows it to order the production of all Ò Õreasonably
available information in the possession of the U.S. Government bearing on the
issue of whether the detainee meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy
combatant,Õ Ó regardless of whether this evidence was put before the CSRT. The
Government, with support from five members of the Court of Appeals, disagrees
with this interpretation. For present purposes, however, we can assume that the
Court of Appeals was correct that the DTA allows introduction and consideration
of relevant exculpatory evidence that was Òreasonably availableÓ to the
Government at the time of the CSRT but not made part of the record. Even so,
the DTA review proceeding falls short of being a constitutionally adequate
substitute, for the detainee still would have no opportunity to present
evidence discovered after the CSRT proceedings concluded.
Under the
DTA the Court of Appeals has the power to review CSRT determinations by
assessing the legality of standards and procedures. This implies the power to
inquire into what happened at the CSRT hearing and, perhaps, to remedy certain
deficiencies in that proceeding. But should the Court of Appeals determine that
the CSRT followed appropriate and lawful standards and procedures, it will have
reached the limits of its jurisdiction. There is no language in the DTA that
can be construed to allow the Court of Appeals to admit and consider newly
discovered evidence that could not have been made part of the CSRT record
because it was unavailable to either the Government or the detainee when the
CSRT made its findings. This evidence, however, may be critical to the
detaineeÕs argument that he is not an enemy combatant and there is no cause to
detain him.
This is not
a remote hypothetical. One of the petitioners, Mohamed Nechla,
requested at his CSRT hearing that the Government contact his employer. The
petitioner claimed the employer would corroborate NechlaÕs
contention he had no affiliation with al Qaeda. Although the CSRT determined
this testimony would be relevant, it also found the witness was not reasonably
available to testify at the time of the hearing. PetitionerÕs counsel, however,
now represents the witness is available to be heard. If a detainee can present
reasonably available evidence demonstrating there is no basis for his continued
detention, he must have the opportunity to present this evidence to a habeas
corpus court. Even under the Court of AppealsÕ generous construction of the
DTA, however, the evidence identified by Nechla would
be inadmissible in a DTA review proceeding. The role of an Article III court in
the exercise of its habeas corpus function cannot be circumscribed in this
manner.
By
foreclosing consideration of evidence not presented or reasonably available to
the detainee at the CSRT proceedings, the DTA disadvantages the detainee by
limiting the scope of collateral review to a record that may not be accurate or
complete. In other contexts . . . similar limitations on the scope of habeas
review may be appropriate. In this context, however, where the underlying
detention proceedings lack the necessary adversarial character, the detainee
cannot be held responsible for all deficiencies in the record. . . .
. . . T]he
Government has not established that the detaineesÕ access to the statutory
review provisions at issue is an adequate substitute for the writ of habeas
corpus. MCA ¤7 thus effects an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. In view
of our holding we need not discuss the reach of the writ with respect to claims
of unlawful conditions of treatment or confinement.
The real
risks, the real threats, of terrorist attacks are constant and not likely soon
to abate. The ways to disrupt our life and laws are so many and unforeseen that
the Court should not attempt even some general catalogue of crises that might
occur. Certain principles are apparent, however. Practical considerations and
exigent circumstances inform the definition and reach of the lawÕs writs,
including habeas corpus. . . .
The cases
before us . . . do not involve detainees who have been held for a short period
of time while awaiting their CSRT determinations. Were that the case, or were
it probable that the Court of Appeals could complete a prompt review of their
applications, the case for requiring temporary abstention or exhaustion of
alternative remedies would be much stronger. These qualifications no longer
pertain here. In some of these cases six years have elapsed without the judicial
oversight that habeas corpus or an adequate substitute demands. And there has
been no showing that the Executive faces such onerous burdens that it cannot
respond to habeas corpus actions. To require these detainees to complete DTA
review before proceeding with their habeas corpus actions would be to require
additional months, if not years, of delay. The first DTA review applications
were filed over a year ago, but no decisions on the merits have been issued.
While some delay in fashioning new procedures is unavoidable, the costs of
delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in
these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.
Our decision
today holds only that the petitioners before us are entitled to seek the writ;
that the DTA review procedures are an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus;
and that the petitioners in these cases need not exhaust the review procedures
in the Court of Appeals before proceeding with their habeas actions in the
District Court. The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA ¤7.
Accordingly, both the DTA and the CSRT process remain intact. Our holding with
regard to exhaustion should not be read to imply that a habeas court should
intervene the moment an enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the
writ runs. The Executive is entitled to a reasonable period of time to
determine a detaineeÕs status before a court entertains that detaineeÕs habeas
corpus petition. . . .
Although we
hold that the DTA is not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas
corpus, it does not follow that a habeas corpus court may disregard the dangers
the detention in these cases was intended to prevent. . . . [T]he Suspension
Clause does not resist innovation in the field of habeas corpus. Certain
accommodations can be made to reduce the burden habeas corpus proceedings will
place on the military without impermissibly diluting the protections of the
writ. . . .
In
considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention
to prevent acts of terrorism, proper deference must be accorded to the
political branches. Unlike the President and some designated Members of
Congress, neither the Members of this Court nor most federal judges begin the
day with briefings that may describe new and serious threats to our Nation and
its people. The law must accord the Executive substantial authority to
apprehend and detain those who pose a real danger to our security.
. . .
Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of
our Armed Forces to act and to interdict. . . . Security subsists, too, in
fidelity to freedomÕs first principles. Chief among these are freedom from
arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by
adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the
judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief derives.
Our opinion
does not undermine the ExecutiveÕs powers as Commander in Chief. On the
contrary, the exercise of those powers is vindicated, not eroded, when
confirmed by the Judicial Branch. Within the ConstitutionÕs
separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as
legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the
authority of the Executive to imprison a person. Some of these petitioners have
been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to
the legality of their detention. Their access to the writ is a necessity to
determine the lawfulness of their status, even if, in the end, they do not
obtain the relief they seek.
Because our
NationÕs past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been
possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined. If, as some
fear, terrorism continues to pose dangerous threats to us for years to come,
the Court might not have this luxury. This result is not inevitable, however.
The political branches, consistent with their independent obligations to
interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how
best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from
terrorism.
. . . We
hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of
habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in
force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in
our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers
decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that
framework, a part of that law.
The
determination by the Court of Appeals that the Suspension Clause and its
protections are inapplicable to petitioners was in error. The judgment of the
Court of Appeals is reversed. The cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals
with instructions that it remand the cases to the District Court for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so
ordered.
JUSTICE SOUTER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG
and JUSTICE BREYER join, concurring.
I join the CourtÕs opinion in its entirety
and add this afterword only to emphasize . . . things one might overlook after
reading the dissents. . . .
It is . . . the very lapse of four years
from the time Rasul [v. Bush, 2004] put everyone on
notice that habeas process was available to Guantanamo prisoners, and the lapse
of six years since some of these prisoners were captured and incarcerated, that
stand at odds with the repeated suggestions of the dissenters that these cases
should be seen as a judicial victory in a contest for power between the Court
and the political branches. The several answers to the charge of triumphalism
might start with a basic fact of Anglo-American constitutional history: that
the power, first of the Crown and now of the Executive Branch of the United
States, is necessarily limited by habeas corpus jurisdiction to enquire into
the legality of executive detention. And one could explain that in this CourtÕs
exercise of responsibility to preserve habeas corpus something much more
significant is involved than pulling and hauling between the judicial and
political branches. Instead, though, it is enough to repeat that some of these
petitioners have spent six years behind bars. After six years of sustained
executive detentions in Guantanamo, subject to habeas jurisdiction but without
any actual habeas scrutiny, todayÕs decision is no judicial victory, but an act
of perseverance in trying to make habeas review, and the obligation of the
courts to provide it, mean something of value both to prisoners and to the
Nation.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE
SCALIA, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Today the Court strikes down as inadequate
the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained
by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these
procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful
investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand,
without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without
explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single
petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the lawÕs operation. And to
what effect? The majority merely replaces a review system designed by the
peopleÕs representatives with a set of shapeless procedures to be defined by
federal courts at some future date. One cannot help but think, after surveying
the modest practical results of the majorityÕs ambitious opinion, that this
decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal
policy regarding enemy combatants.
The majority is adamant that the Guantanamo
detainees are entitled to the protections of habeas corpus--its opinion begins
by deciding that question. I regard the issue as a difficult one, primarily
because of the unique and unusual jurisdictional status of Guantanamo Bay. . .
. The important point for me, however, is that the Court should have resolved
these cases on other grounds. Habeas is most fundamentally a procedural right,
a mechanism for contesting the legality of executive detention. The critical
threshold question in these cases, prior to any inquiry about the writÕs scope,
is whether the system the political branches designed protects whatever rights
the detainees may possess. If so, there is no need for any additional process,
whether called ÒhabeasÓ or something else.
Congress entrusted that threshold question
in the first instance to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, as the Constitution surely allows Congress to do. But before the D.C.
Circuit has addressed the issue, the Court cashiers the statute, and without
answering this critical threshold question itself. . . . The majority instead
compares the undefined DTA process to an equally undefined habeas right--one
that is to be given shape only in the future by district courts on a
case-by-case basis. This whole approach is misguided.
It is also fruitless. How the detaineesÕ
claims will be decided now that the DTA is gone is anybodyÕs guess. . . . All that
todayÕs opinion has done is shift responsibility for those sensitive foreign
policy and national security decisions from the elected branches to the Federal
Judiciary.
I believe the system the political branches
constructed adequately protects any constitutional rights aliens captured
abroad and detained as enemy combatants may enjoy. I therefore would dismiss
these cases on that ground. With all respect for the contrary views of the
majority, I must dissent. . . .
The political branches created a two-part,
collateral review procedure for testing the legality of the prisonersÕ
detention: It begins with a hearing before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal
(CSRT) followed by review in the D.C. Circuit. As part of that review, Congress
authorized the D.C. Circuit to decide whether the CSRT proceedings are
consistent with Òthe Constitution and laws of the United States.Ó No
petitioner, however, has invoked the D.C. Circuit review the statute specifies.
As a consequence, that court has had no occasion to decide whether the CSRT
hearings, followed by review in the Court of Appeals, vindicate whatever
constitutional and statutory rights petitioners may possess.
Remarkably, this Court does not require
petitioners to exhaust their remedies under the statute; it does not wait to
see whether those remedies will prove sufficient to protect petitionersÕ
rights. Instead, it not only denies the D.C. Circuit the opportunity to assess
the statuteÕs remedies, it refuses to do so itself: the majority expressly
declines to decide whether the CSRT procedures, coupled with Article III
review, satisfy due process.
It is grossly premature to pronounce on the
detaineesÕ right to habeas without first assessing whether the remedies the DTA
system provides vindicate whatever rights petitioners may claim. The plurality
in Hamdi explained that the Constitution guaranteed
an American citizen challenging his detention as an enemy combatant the right
to Ònotice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity
to rebut the GovernmentÕs factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.Ó The plurality specifically stated that
constitutionally adequate collateral process could be provided Òby an
appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal,Ó given the
Òuncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military
conflict.Ó This point is directly pertinent here, for surely the Due Process
Clause does not afford non-citizens in such circumstances greater protection
than citizens are due.
If the CSRT procedures meet the minimal due
process requirements outlined in Hamdi, and if an
Article III court is available to ensure that these procedures are followed in
future cases, there is no need to reach the Suspension Clause question.
Detainees will have received all the process the Constitution could possibly
require, whether that process is called ÒhabeasÓ or something else. . . .
In the absence of any assessment of the DTAÕs remedies, the question whether detainees are entitled
to habeas is an entirely speculative one. Our precedents have long counseled us
to avoid deciding such hypothetical questions of constitutional law. This is a
Òfundamental rule of judicial restraint.Ó . . .
[T]he system the Court has launched (and
directs lower courts to elaborate) promises to take longer. The Court assures
us that before bringing their habeas petitions, detainees must usually complete
the CSRT process. Then they may seek review in federal district court. Either
success or failure there will surely result in an appeal to the D.C.
Circuit--exactly where judicial review starts under CongressÕs system. The
effect of the CourtÕs decision is to add additional layers of quite possibly
redundant review. And because nobody knows how these new layers of ÒhabeasÓ
review will operate, or what new procedures they will require, their contours
will undoubtedly be subject to fresh bouts of litigation. If the majority were
truly concerned about delay, it would have required petitioners to use the DTA
process that has been available to them for 2 1/2 years, with its Article III
review in the D.C. Circuit. That system might well have provided petitioners
all the relief to which they are entitled long before the CourtÕs newly
installed habeas review could hope to do so. . . .
The majorityÕs overreaching is particularly
egregious given the weakness of its objections to the DTA. Simply put, the
CourtÕs opinion fails on its own terms. The majority strikes down the statute
because it is not an Òadequate substituteÓ for habeas review, but fails to show
what rights the detainees have that cannot be vindicated by the DTA system. . .
.
. . . [T]he Court makes no effort to
elaborate how exactly the remedy it prescribes will differ from the procedural
protections detainees enjoy under the DTA. The Court objects to the detaineesÕ
limited access to witnesses and classified material, but proposes no
alternatives of its own. Indeed, it simply ignores the many difficult questions
its holding presents. . . .
The majority rests its decision on abstract
and hypothetical concerns. Step back and consider what, in the real world,
Congress and the Executive have actually granted aliens captured by our Armed
Forces overseas and found to be enemy combatants:
The right to hear the bases of the charges
against them, including a summary of any classified evidence.
The ability to challenge the bases of their
detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures.
Some 38 detainees have been released as a result of this process.
The right, before the CSRT, to testify,
introduce evidence, call witnesses, question those the Government calls, and
secure release, if and when appropriate.
The right to the aid of a personal
representative in arranging and presenting their cases before a CSRT.
Before the D.C. Circuit, the right to employ
counsel, challenge the factual record, contest the lower tribunalÕs legal
determinations, ensure compliance with the Constitution and laws, and secure
release, if any errors below establish their entitlement to such relief.
In sum, the DTA satisfies the majorityÕs own
criteria for assessing adequacy. This statutory scheme provides the combatants
held at Guantanamo greater procedural protections than have ever been afforded
alleged enemy detainees--whether citizens or aliens--in our national history.
So who has won? Not the detainees. The
CourtÕs analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to
determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation
to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the
D.C. Circuit--where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure.
Not Congress, whose attempt to Òdetermine--through democratic means--how bestÓ
to balance the security of the American people with the detaineesÕ liberty
interests has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose
majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky
outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by
that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role
than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy
combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more
control over the conduct of this NationÕs foreign policy to unelected,
politically unaccountable judges.
I respectfully dissent.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Today, for the first time in our NationÕs
history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien
enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.
. . . My problem with todayÕs opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of
habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the
Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the CourtÕs intervention in this
military matter is entirely ultra vires. . . .
America is at war with radical Islamists.
The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the
Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers
in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and
Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. On September 11, 2001, the enemy
brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New
York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. It
has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about
buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country,
to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field
against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. . . .
The game of bait-and-switch that todayÕs
opinion plays upon the NationÕs Commander in Chief will make the war harder on
us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That
consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal
principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this CourtÕs blatant
abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today. The President
relied on our settled precedent . . . when he established the prison at
Guantanamo Bay for enemy aliens. . . . Had the law been otherwise, the military
surely would not have transported prisoners there, but would have kept them in
Afghanistan, transferred them to another of our foreign military bases, or
turned them over to allies for detention. Those other facilities might well
have been worse for the detainees themselves. . . .
. . . A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), when
the Court held (quite amazingly) that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 had
not stripped habeas jurisdiction over Guantanamo petitionersÕ claims, four
Members of todayÕs five-Justice majority joined an opinion saying the following:
ÒNothing prevents the President from
returning to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission]
he believes necessary.
ÒWhere, as here, no emergency prevents
consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not
weaken our NationÕs ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that
insistence strengthens the NationÕs ability to determine--through democratic
means--how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic
means.Ó
Turns out they were just kidding. For in
response, Congress, at the PresidentÕs request, quickly enacted the Military
Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did not want these prisoners
filing habeas petitions. It is therefore clear that Congress and the Executive--both
political branches--have determined that limiting the role of civilian courts
in adjudicating whether prisoners captured abroad are properly detained is
important to success in the war that some 190,000 of our men and women are now
fighting. As the Solicitor General argued, Òthe Military Commissions Act and
the Detainee Treatment Act . . . represent an effort by the political branches
to strike an appropriate balance between the need to preserve liberty and the
need to accommodate the weighty and sensitive governmental interests in
ensuring that those who have in fact fought with the enemy during a war do not
return to battle against the United States.Ó
But it does not matter. The Court today
decrees that no good reason to accept the judgment of the other two branches is
Òapparent.Ó ÒThe Government,Ó it declares, Òpresents no credible arguments that
the military mission at Guantanamo would be compromised if habeas corpus courts
had jurisdiction to hear the detaineesÕ claims.Ó What competence does the Court
have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a
point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as
todayÕs opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this
war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national
security concerns that the subject entails. . . .
The category of prisoner comparable to these
detainees are . . . the more than 400,000 prisoners of war detained in the
United States alone during World War II. Not a single one was accorded the
right to have his detention validated by a habeas corpus action in federal
court--and that despite the fact that they were present on U.S. soil. . . .
There is simply no support for the CourtÕs
assertion that constitutional rights extend to aliens held outside U.S.
sovereign territory. . . .
What drives todayÕs decision is neither the
meaning of the Suspension Clause, nor the principles of our precedents, but
rather an inflated notion of judicial supremacy. The Court says that if the
extraterritorial applicability of the Suspension Clause turned on formal
notions of sovereignty, Òit would be possible for the political branches to
govern without legal constraintÓ in areas beyond the sovereign territory of the
United States. That cannot be, the Court says, because it is the duty of this
Court to say what the law is. It would be difficult to imagine a more
question-begging analysis. ÒThe very foundation of the power of the federal
courts to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the power and duty
of those courts to decide cases and controversies properly before them.Ó Our
power Òto say what the law isÓ is circumscribed by the limits of our
statutorily and constitutionally conferred jurisdiction. And that is precisely
the question in these cases: whether the Constitution confers habeas
jurisdiction on federal courts to decide petitionersÕ claims. It is both
irrational and arrogant to say that the answer must be yes, because otherwise
we would not be supreme.
But so long as there are some places to
which habeas does not run--so long as the CourtÕs new ÒfunctionalÓ test will
not be satisfied in every case--then there will be circumstances in which Òit
would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal
constraint.Ó Or, to put it more impartially, areas in which the legal
determinations of the other branches will be (shudder!) supreme. In other
words, judicial supremacy is not really assured by the constitutional rule that
the Court creates. The gap between rationale and rule leads me to conclude that
the CourtÕs ultimate, unexpressed goal is to preserve the power to review the
confinement of enemy prisoners held by the Executive anywhere in the world. The
ÒfunctionalÓ test . . . is so inherently subjective that it clears a wide path
for the Court to traverse in the years to come.
. . . [I]t is clear that the original
understanding of the Suspension Clause was that habeas corpus was not available
to aliens abroad. . . .
. . . [A]ll
available historical evidence points to the conclusion that the writ would not
have been available at common law for aliens captured and held outside the
sovereign territory of the Crown. Despite three opening briefs, three reply
briefs, and support from a legion of amici,
petitioners have failed to identify a single case in the history of
Anglo-American law that supports their claim to jurisdiction. The Court finds
it significant that there is no recorded case denying jurisdiction to such
prisoners either. But a case standing for the remarkable proposition that the
writ could issue to a foreign land would surely have been reported, whereas a
case denying such a writ for lack of jurisdiction would likely not. At a
minimum, the absence of a reported case either way leaves unrefuted
the voluminous commentary stating that habeas was confined to the dominions of
the Crown. . . .
Today the Court warps our Constitution in a
way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause,
invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a
manipulable ÒfunctionalÓ test for the
extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the
extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It
blatantly misdescribes important precedents. . . . It
breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial
inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And,
most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving
to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future,
that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.
The Nation
will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.