Boumediene v. Bush

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.