Docket 06-1195
Boumediene v. Bush
DecidedJun 12, 2008
5-4decision
Source: CourtListener.
Supreme Court rules Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus
Impact8/10
What it does
The ruling holds that the Suspension Clause applies in full at Guantanamo Bay and that the detainees there are entitled to seek habeas corpus in federal court. It strikes down Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act, which stripped courts of habeas jurisdiction over these detainees, because the substitute review process in the Detainee Treatment Act does not provide an adequate replacement for habeas review.
Who benefits
Foreign nationals detained by the United States military as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, who can now bring habeas corpus petitions in federal district court to challenge the legality of their detention.
Who is affected
The Executive Branch, which must now defend detention decisions in federal habeas proceedings rather than only through military tribunals and limited appellate review; federal district courts, which must develop procedures for these cases; and Congress, whose jurisdiction-stripping statute was invalidated.
Practical impact
Guantanamo detainees may now file habeas corpus petitions directly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia without first exhausting DTA review, and district courts must develop procedures allowing detainees to contest the sufficiency of evidence, present newly available exculpatory evidence, and seek release as a remedy. The DTA and CSRT process remain in place but no longer serve as the exclusive or mandatory route for challenging detention, shifting significant authority over enemy combatant detention decisions to the federal judiciary.
Majority reasoning
The majority reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was central to the constitutional design and that its reach should not depend on formal notions of sovereignty that the political branches could manipulate to switch constitutional protections on or off at will. Because the United States exercises complete and indefinite practical control over Guantanamo Bay even though Cuba retains technical sovereignty, the Court applied a functional test considering the detainee's status and the process used to determine it, the location and nature of detention, and practical obstacles to habeas review, concluding all three factors favored extending the privilege. The Court found the DTA's review procedures in the D.C. Circuit inadequate because they did not permit detainees to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence fully, did not clearly allow release as a remedy, and barred consideration of exculpatory evidence discovered after CSRT proceedings concluded. The majority also concluded that the six-year delay many detainees had already faced made it appropriate to decide the constitutional question immediately rather than remanding for further proceedings.
Dissent reasoning
Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting, argued the majority should have first required detainees to exhaust the DTA's CSRT and D.C. Circuit review process before deciding any constitutional question, since if those procedures satisfied due process there would be no need to reach the Suspension Clause at all. He contended the DTA process closely tracked the procedures the Hamdi plurality found adequate for citizen detainees, including notice, a chance to rebut evidence, and Article III review, and that the majority struck down the statute based on a speculative hypothetical about later-discovered evidence rather than a real showing of harm to any petitioner. Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice, Thomas, and Alito, dissented separately, arguing that the writ of habeas corpus has never historically extended to aliens held outside sovereign United States territory, that Johnson v. Eisentrager squarely held habeas unavailable to aliens detained abroad, and that the majority's "functional" test misreads that precedent and English common-law history to manufacture judicial power not granted by the Constitution. Scalia further warned that extending habeas rights to enemy combatants during an ongoing war would burden military operations and could lead to the release of dangerous detainees, citing examples of former detainees who returned to combat.
Constitutional question
Whether foreign nationals detained as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause, and whether the review procedures Congress substituted for habeas in the Detainee Treatment Act are an adequate replacement.
Precedent changed
The Court did not overrule Johnson v. Eisentrager but narrowed its reading, rejecting the Government's argument that Eisentrager established a formalistic, sovereignty-based bar to habeas for aliens detained abroad.