Boumediene et al. v. Bush at al. fr

Country of proceedings: United States
Context of crimes: Bosnia and Herzegovina, War on terror
Date: 2001 - present
Keywords: Terrorism, jurisdiction, habeas corpus

Court documents

08-07-2004 - District Court (DC): Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
20-02-2007 - Court of Appeal (DC): Decision
07-04-2007 - Supreme Court: Petitions for writs of certiorari (statement)
07-04-2007 - Supreme Court: Petitions for writs of certiorari (dissenting opinion)
12-06-2008 - Supreme Court: Opinion

Presentation of the case

On 12 June 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that the Guantánamo detainees do have some legal rights, including the right to challenge their detention. It held that detainees have the right to habeas corpus and that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) is an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

The petitioners originally sought a writ of habeas corpus in the US District Court. The court concluded that the MCA removed the jurisdiction of Federal Courts to consider habeas corpus applications, and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) provided an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that habeas corpus extends to Guantánamo. The Court held that because the United States has unilateral control over the property at Guantánamo Bay (the United States has a long term lease with Cuba, which has de jure sovereignty over the territory), the prison is within the statutory jurisdiction of the US federal courts. The detainees are therefore entitled to the constitutional right to habeas corpus, and this right cannot be suspended by designating a detainee an ‘enemy combatant’ or because of their presence at Guantánamo.

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the DTA provides for an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. The petitioners argued that there were a number of deficiencies, including a constraint on the detainee’s ability to rebut the Government’s assertion that he is an enemy combatant. Justice Kennedy wrote that the review procedure provided “falls short of being a constitutionally adequate substitute” because it failed to offer “the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus.” The procedure was held to have major flaws.