24 Comments

1. Boumediene v. Bush
   553 U.S. 723 (2008)

   Facts: In 2002, Lakhdar Boumediene and several other Algerian nationals were arrested by Bosnian authorities on suspicion of plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia. They were classified as enemy combatants and transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were detained without formal charges. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his right to due process had been violated. Lower courts dismissed his case, citing that non-citizens held overseas had no right to file habeas petitions. However, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. Meanwhile, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in 2006, which limited federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions from foreign detainees. Boumediene and others contended that the MCA violated the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

   Legal Questions:

   Does the Military Commissions Act (MCA) strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions from foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay?
   Does the MCA violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?
   Are Guantanamo Bay detainees entitled to protections under the Fifth Amendment?
   Can detainees challenge their detention through judicial review before a formal review process has been initiated?

   Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the Court answered “Yes” to all of the legal questions.

   Reasoning: The majority held that the MCA was unconstitutional because it unlawfully suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which the Constitution only allows in cases of rebellion or invasion. The Court ruled that foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay should not be denied their right to file habeas petitions simply because they were labeled as enemy combatants. The decision reversed the lower courts’ dismissal of Boumediene’s case, asserting that the detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts, even though they were held outside the mainland U.S.

   Summary: Boumediene v. Bush was a landmark decision that reinforced the constitutional right of habeas corpus, even for foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court ruled that the Military Commissions Act’s attempt to limit habeas corpus rights violated the Suspension Clause and that detainees have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

   Reply

2. Case Brief: Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

   Legal Citation: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)

   Facts: Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was captured in Afghanistan and detained at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal document challenging the legality of his detention, in a civilian court. The government argued that Boumediene, as an enemy combatant held outside the United States, did not have the right to habeas corpus.

   Issue: Can enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts?

   Decision and Action: 5-4 decision for Boumediene. The Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees had the right to petition for habeas corpus to challenge their detention.

   Reasoning of the Court: Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion. The Court acknowledged the President’s wartime powers but concluded that the habeas corpus right was a fundamental part of the legal system and could not be completely denied. The Court distinguished Guantanamo from prior cases involving wartime detentions within the United States, finding that the detainees at Guantanamo were not on U.S. soil and lacked access to alternative legal remedies.

   Concurring Opinion: Justice Stevens wrote a separate concurrence, emphasizing the importance of judicial review in protecting individual liberty.

   Dissenting Opinion: Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, dissented. They argued that the habeas corpus right could be suspended during wartime and that the Court was interfering with the President’s authority to manage the war on terror.

   Voting Coalition: Majority: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens. Dissent: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.

   Summary of Legal Principles:
   – Enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay have the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts.
   – The habeas corpus right is a fundamental part of the legal system and cannot be completely denied, even during wartime.
   – The Court recognized a distinction between wartime detentions within the United States and those at locations like Guantanamo Bay.

   Reply

3. Boumediene v. Bush
   553 US 723 (2008)

   Facts:
   In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and other Algerian nationals were arrested by Bosnian police on suspicion that they sought to attack the U.S Embassy in Bosnia. They were then classified as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Boumidiene filed for writ of habeas corpus alleging his right to due process had been violated. Lesser courts dismissed the case saying ‘aliens’ detained overseas had no right to a habeas petition. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. In 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act which limited federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from foreign detainees. The detainees argued it was unconstitutional according to the Suspension Clause.

   Legal Questions:
   Does the MCA strip federal courts jurisdiction over foreign detainees in Guantanamo Bay?
   Does the MCA violate the Suspension Clause?
   Are Guantanamo Bay detainees given protection under the Fifth Amendment?
   Are detainees able to challenge the judicial review before they have invoked a review?

   Holding:
   5-4, Yes to all the questions stated.

   Reasoning:
   The majority opinion stated that the MCA was unconstitutional and was an unconstitutional suspension of writ of habeas corpus. Detainees should not be barred from filing for writ of habeas corpus just because they were labeled enemy combatants. This opinion reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

   Reply

4. Title and Citation:
   Boumediene v Bush
   553 US 723 2008

   Statement of Facts:
   In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there.
   The U.S government classified the men as enemy combatants and detained them in Guantanamo Bay.
   Boumediene filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the due process clause, various statutes, and treaties, the common law, and international law.
   The District Court judge dismissed Boumediene’s claims on the grounds that he was an alien detained at an overseas military based, therefore he had no right to a habeas petition.
   The Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v Bush, which held that habeas corpus statute extends to non- citizens detainees at Guantanamo.
   In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act which prevented detainees classified as unlawful alien enemy combatants from challenging the conditions of their confinement and detentions through habeas corpus petitions.
   The detainees argued that MCA did not apply to their petitions, if they did it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause.

   Legal Questions:
   Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
   If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?
   Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?
   Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?

   Holding:
   Yes, to all questions.

   Reasoning:
   The Court stated that if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees’ cases be dismissed. However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and found in favor of the detainees.

   Reply

5. Boumediene v. Bush
   553 US 723

   Facts:
   Boumediene and several Algerian citizens were apprehended in Bosnia by U.S. intelligence officers, commonly referred to as the CIA, on suspicion of planning an attack on a U.S. embassy in Bosnia. Designated as enemy combatants, they were detained at Guantanamo Bay. Boumediene sought relief through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, citing various treaties, including the Geneva Convention, and arguing for the protection of his rights under international law. The government contended that as non-U.S. citizens, they were not entitled to constitutional rights and that the Military Commission Act (MCA) of 2006 barred them from seeking Habeas Corpus relief.

   Issues at Hand:
   Can the Military Commission Act be construed as stripping the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over Habeas Corpus petitions?
   If so, does this constitute a violation of the Suspension Clause, Article One, Section 9, Clause 3?
   Are detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to Fifth Amendment protections and rights under the Geneva Convention?
   Can detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions in the MCA before undergoing such review?

   Court’s Decision and Rationale:
   The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the detainees on all counts. It held that the procedures outlined in the Detainee Treatment Act did not supplant the fundamental right to habeas corpus, viewing the MCA as an unconstitutional suspension of this right. Regardless of their designation as enemy combatants or their location at Guantanamo Bay, the detainees retained the right to seek habeas relief or invoke the Suspension Clause. The Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s decision, affirming the detainees’ entitlement to constitutional protections and the opportunity to challenge their detention through habeas corpus proceedings.

   Reply

6. I. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)

   II. Facts:
   The petitioners were aliens detained at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated as enemy combatants by Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs). They filed habeas corpus petitions in the District Court challenging their detentions, but the court dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the petitioners had no constitutional rights because they were aliens detained outside sovereign U.S. territory.

   III. Issues:
   Whether the petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus to challenge their detention at Guantanamo Bay.

   IV. Holding:
   Yes

   V. Rationale:
   The Suspension Clause of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo, even though Cuba retains de jure sovereignty, because the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over the naval station. The Court rejected the idea that the Constitution’s habeas protections depend on the detainee’s citizenship or location.

   VI. Judgment:
   Reversed and remanded.

   Reply

7. Title: Boumediene v. Bush

   Citation: 553 US 723 (2008)

   Facts: In 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) to provide legal protections for Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their classification as unlawful “enemy combatants.” One year later, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). Section 7(a) of the MCA prevented detainees classified as undocumented people “enemy combatants” from challenging the conditions of their confinement and detentions through a writ of habeas corpus. Boumediene and five others were inspected by the U.S. and seized by the Bosnia Police on the grounds that the U.S. suspected them of planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy. Boumediene and the 5 others were detained in Guantanamo Bay,Cuba. The six lives were classified as “enemy combatants’ and tried to sue against the U.S., challenging the legality of their detainment through a writ of habeas corpus. U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the MCA. The six lives petitioned for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
   Legal Question: Is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution? Are the detainees eligible to file a writ of habeas corpus?

   Holding: Yes

   Reasoning: The Court stated that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ.Thefore those detained Guantanamo Bay were not ineligible for or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been classified as “foreign enemies”.

   Reply

   • sorry, I do not understand?

     Reply

8. Boumediene v. Bush
   Legal Citation: 553 U.S. 723 (2008)

   Statement of Facts:
   – U.S. intelligence officers suspected Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian citizens of planning to attack the U.S. embassy in Bosnia and instructed the Bosnian police to arrest them. The six individuals were then detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and classified as “enemy combatants”. Boumediene filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that this violated his due process under the Constitution.
   – A federal district court dismissed the claims on the grounds that Boumediene was a non-citizen detained overseas and thus had no habeas rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, however, the Supreme Court reversed per Rasul v. Bush – noncitizen detainees in Guantanamo were entitled to habeas relief.
   – In response, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in 2006. This Act stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions from those held in Guantanamo Bay who were labeled as “enemy combatants”.
   – Boumediene and the others detained claimed that the Act did not apply to their habeas petitions, as they were pending prior to the Act’s passage, and that it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause.
   – Suspension Clause: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”.
   – A federal district court first agreed with the government and dismissed their petitions, but shortly after, another district court rejected the United States’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the petitioners were entitled to due process. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court judgment and dismissed the cases due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court claimed that the MCA stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees and rejected the Suspension Clause argument. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

   Statement of Issues: Is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?

   Holding: Yes. 5-4.

   Reasoning: The Court ruled that the MCA is an unconstitutional violation of the Suspension Clause. Similar to United States citizens in detention for terrorism-related reasons, foreign suspects in Guantanamo Bay have the authority to challenge their detention in federal court. The Court finds that even though the detainees are labeled as “enemy combatants,” that is not enough to prevent them from seeking habeas relief under the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause plays an important role in the separation of powers principles and applies to Guantanamo Bay. Even when acting outside of its borders, the federal government is subject to the Constitution.

   Reply

9. Boumedience v Bush (2008)
   Facts: In 2002, Lakhdar Boumedience and five other Algerian natives had been captured by the Bosnian police because they were suspected by US intelligence agents that they would attack the United States embassy in Sarajevo. Boumedience and the five others were then labeled as enemy combatants, based on the War on Terror, by the United States government and had been detained at Guantánamo Bay. Boumedience filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, however the district court dismissed the claims of violations of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, common law, various statutes and treaties, and international law. The reason it has been dismissed was because of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which eliminated the federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees who are deemed to be “enemy combatants.” The other reason was that Boumediene was an allied that was being detained at an overseas military base. Boumediene argued that it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause and that MCA did not apply to his habeas corpus petition.
   Issues: Did the foreign detainees have the right to a writ of habeas corpus? Is the MCA a violation of the Suspension Clause?
   Holding: The Court determined that detainees that are considered “enemy combatants” or held at Guantánamo Bay should not be denied being able to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The MCA was deemed unconstitutional as it suspended detainees from petitioning a writ of habeas corpus.
   Concurring Opinion: Justice Souter along with Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer
   Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia [separate dissent opinions] along with Justice Alito and Justice Thomas

   Reply

10. Boumedine v. Bush
    Legal Citation
    553 US 723
    III.Facts
    Boumedine and other Alergian Citizens were seized in Bosnia after the U.S. intelligence officers, cough couch “CIA.” suspected that they were planning to attack a U.S. embassy in Bosnia. The government labels them as an enemy combatant and places them in a detention center in Guantanamo Bay. Boumedine petitions for A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, citing many treaties, such as the Geneve Convention, a treaty signed by the U.S. president, and deals with international relations. The government argued that Boumedine had no rights granted by the constitution, as he wasn’t a U.S. citizen. The government cited The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which dealt with the guidelines of integration standards set by the military, and it didn’t allow prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay to petition for a Writ Of Habeas Corpus. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the original district court. However, after the Supreme Court set the Rasul v. Bush case as a precedent, Habeas Corpus also extended to non-citizens. In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commission Act, which prohibited the federal courts from hearing Habeas of Corpus. In a second appeal, the detained argued that the Military Commission Act did not apply to them because it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause; the suspension Clause is under Article One, Section 9, Clause 3 clearly states: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The D.C. District Court ruled that MCA clearly stated that the law applied to “all cases, without exception” related to aspects of detention. The District Circuit Court held that the Suspension Clause only protects the writ of habeas corpus, as understood in 1789. It emphatically stated that in 1789, the writ would not have been interpreted to apply to an overseas military base leased from a foreign government. The Court emphatically held that constitutional rights do not extend to non-U.S. citizens outside the U.S.. It stated that the army base in Cuba is not considered within the geographical borders of the U.S.
    V. Issue
    Can the Military Commission Act be interpreted as stripping down the Federal Court’s jurisdiction over the Habeas Corpus?
    If so, is it a violation of the Suspension Clause, Article One, Section 9, Clause 3?
    Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of their Fifth Amendment rights and the Geneva Convention?
    Can the detainees challenge the sufficiency of judicial review provisions of the MCA before using that review?
    VI. Ruling
    The Court ruled in favor of all five cases. It emphasized that the procedures outlined in the Detainee Treatment Act do not replace the habeas writ, seeing the MCA as an unconstitutional suspension. The detainees, regardless of being designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay, were entitled to seek habeas or invoke the Suspension Clause. The Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and ruled in favor of the detainees.

    Reply

11. I. Boumediene v. Bush
    II. 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
    III. Boumediene and five other Algerian citizens were labelled as enemy combatants and detained by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay under the suspicion they were planning an attack on a U.S. embassy in Bosnia. Boumediene filed for a writ of habeas corpus, but the district courts denied it because he was an alien and was being held outside of U.S. territory. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul v. Bush, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which banned the Supreme Court from hearing writ of habeas corpus cases from enemy combatants. Boumediene argued that his writ of habeas corpus did not fall under the ban in the Military Commissions Act and that the Act was unconstitutional because of the Suspension Clause.
    IV. Did the alien detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a Constitutional privilege to a writ of habeas corpus, except under the Suspension Clause?
    V. Yes
    VI. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court. The designation of detainees as enemy combatants is not enough under the Suspension Clause to deny the right to a writ of habeas corpus. The federal government must follow the Constitution, even outside U.S. territory. Therefore, the Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
    VII. Justices Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer concurred. They said that the six years in which the detainees had been held meant that the courts had to issue habeas corpus.
    VIII. In a dissent authored by Scalia, the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Alito Jr. argued that the Detainee Treatment Act was sufficient protection. They said that it was unclear what the alternative was and that it was rash for the Court to overturn precedent during times of war, placing a greater burden on the military. In another dissent, authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by the same dissenters as the Scalia opinion, they said that no non-U.S. citizen not held in the U.S. should be granted habeas corpus.
    IX. The decision was 5-4 in favor of Boumediene.
    X. This case expanded the right to habeas corpus for detainees in Guantanamo bay to non-citizens.

    Reply

    • Boumediene v. Bush
      533 U.S. 723, 128 S.CY. 2229 (2008)

      Facts: Lakhdar Boumediene and other detainees were captured overseas and detained without charges at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, they sought to challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions.
      The Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was in place, determining military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for violations of the laws of war and other offenses.

      Issues: Do alien detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to habeas corpus? and is the procedure laid out in the MCA an adequate replacement?

      Result: In a 5-4 the answers to the issues were Yes and No. On top of that the section of the MCA that authorized military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants was also considered unconstitutional.

      Reply

12. I. Boumediene v. Bush
    II. 553 US 723 (2008)
    III. Facts. In 2001 the US seized Boumediene and sent him to the military base in Guantanamo Bay because he was considered a combatant to the US. Boumediene then sought a writ of habeas corpus in district court where it was dismissed.
    IV. Issues:
    1. Does habeas corpus apply to foreign citizens held at Guantanamo?
    2. Does the Detainee Treatment Act provide an adequate substitute?
    V. Decision and Action: (1) Yes (2) No reversed. Case remanded
    VI. Reasoning: Per Kennedy
    Did extensive reading into the history of habeas corpus and decided it was an essential means of protecting individual freedom. If congress wanted to deny habeas corpus to detainees they’d had to suspend the writ in accordance with the suspension clause. Also, because the Detainee Treatment Act granted only the DC Circuit Court jurisdiction to review decisions to review decisions that it did not allow the detains to rebut the case against them.
    VII. Concurring Opinion: Per Souter
    HE stated that Judicial intervention was necessary to preserve the writs value.
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion: Per Roberts
    Stated that the Detainee Treatment Act’s procedures are constitutionally sufficient and don’t require suspension of the writ.
    IX. Voting Coalitions (5-4)
    X. Summary:
    Petitioners were designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay. The procedures for challenging their designations were laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The detainees sought habeas corpus. The Courts stated that because the history of habeas corpus was a means of protecting individual freedom that it reached out to those incarcerated abroad.

    Reply

13. Boumediene v. Bush (553 U.S. 723 (2008)). Again this is a very similar case to the last two. In this instance, Lakhdar Boumediene and five others were arrested and taken to Guantanamo Bay under the indictment of being “enemy combatants.” This was after they were arrested by intelligence police under the suspension that they were planning to attack the U.S. embassy. He thus filed for a writ of habeas corpus and a violation of the due process clause but the lower Court dismissed it because he was not a U.S. citizen and thus not entitled to rights in the Constitution. The appeals case affirmed this ruling. So then the issues is the military commissions act of 2006 a violation of the suspension clause. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that yes it did. They reversed the lower courts decision and ruled in favor of Boumediene.

    Reply

14. The District Court judge granted the government’s motion to have all of the claims dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas military base, had no right to a habeas petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, which held that the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo.

    Reply

15. The D.C. Circuit decided for the public authority on the two focuses. It refered to language in the MCA applying the law to “all cases, no matter what” that relate to parts of confinement. One of the motivations behind the MCA, as indicated by the Circuit Court, was to overrule the Supreme Court’s viewpoint in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which had permitted petitions like Boumediene’s to go ahead. The D.C. Circuit held that the Suspension Clause just safeguards the writ of habeas corpus as it existed in 1789, and that the writ could not have possibly been perceived in 1789 to apply to an abroad army installation rented from an unfamiliar government. Protected freedoms don’t make a difference to outsiders beyond the United States, the court held, and the rented army installation in Cuba doesn’t qualify as inside the geographic boundaries of the U.S. In an uncommon inversion, the Supreme Court allowed certiorari after at first denying survey three months sooner.

    https://www.google.com/imgres

    Reply

16. Boumediene v. Bush
    533 U.S. 723, 128 S.CY. 2229 (2008)
    Facts: After being detained by Bosnian police, Lakhdar Boumediene and other Algerian nationals were sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and he filed for a petition for habeas corpus. The federal court stated that he could not have this petition because he was an “alien” detained overseas. They were denied due process but another district court said that they were entitled to this.
    Issue?
    Can non U.S. citizens petition for habeas corpus under the fifth amendment?
    Decisions and Actions: (1) yes. Ruling reversed.
    Reasons: Per Kennedy
    If habeas corpus is denied , congress has to act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension clause, meaning the federal government cannot suspend habeas corpus unless in extraordinary circumstances.
    Concurring Opinions: Per Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
    Dissenting Opinions: Per Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.
    Voting Coalition: (5-4). For the majority, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy. Dissenting, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito.
    Summary: The courts has ruled that prisoners that are non-U.S. citizens have the right to petition for habeas corpus under the fifth amendment.
    Free Space:

    Reply

17. Reaffirmed the precedent that the right to due process isn’t dependent on citizenship, which they had established in Rasul v. Bush.

    Reply

18. I get the sense that Congress was trying to skirt the Court’s decision in Rasul v. Bush by passing the Military Commissions Act later in 2006 attempting to once again strip prisoners’ rights in Guantanamo Bay. This action seems sort of outrageous in a way that only the War on Terror could produce, so I’m glad the Court once again poured cold water on the other branches.

    Reply

19. I. Boumediene v. Bush
    II. 553 U.S. 723 (2008)
    III. Facts: Lakhdar Boumediene and five other men were arrested and held in Guantanamo Bay for being suspected “enemy combatants.” Boumediene then filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which the District Court dismissed on the grounds that he was not a U.S. citizen and, therefore, not entitled to rights outlined in the Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed this.
    IV. Issues:
    (1) Are non-citizens granted fifth amendment rights when being detained in Guantanamo Bay?
    V. Decision and Action: (1) Yes.
    VI. Reasoning: Per Kennedy.
    (1) The writ of habeas corpus applies to non-citizens, as well, and if detainees of Guantanamo Bay are not offered one, they must provide a proper substitute. The measures already in place do not suffice.
    VII. Concurring Opinion(s): Per Souter.
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion(s): Per Scalia.
    IX. Voting Coalitions: (5 to 3). For the majority, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. For the minority, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito.
    X. Summary:
    XI. Free Space:

    Reply

20. This case was similar to that of Rasul v. Bush, in that, Congress continued to respect and give rights to those being held in guantanamo bay. I think this is a win for the country as it helps people who are not american citizens to have some rights within our laws. This case certainly showed a more important seperation of powers as well.

    Reply

21. Boumediene v. Bush is a reinforcement of the idea that being held in Guantanamo does not mean that Constitutional rights no longer apply (as in Rasul). This time, though, the Court asserted that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional, as it withheld the ability of the judicial branch to conduct business as provided in the Constitution. I was surprised that no lower court had come to this conclusion, but even 4 members of the Court dissented.

    Reply

22. Jared CuthbertsonMay 25, 2020
    While this case produced many questions and answers, I find the most interesting to be the courts decision of reinforcing the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus. The court found that the 2006 MCA was unconstitutional as it denied Habeas Corpus to those in Guantanamo bay.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Brianna Moling
    Brianna MolingMay 25, 2020
    This case seems similar to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld where “enemy combatants” were detained in Guantanamo Bay and their right to due process was violated. The Court’s decision that aliens (Boumediene in this case) have no right to habeus corpus was eventually reversed in Rasul v. Bush, where habeas corpus was extended to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Tess Manke
    Tess MankeMay 24, 2020
    Boumediene and Al Odah had petitioned that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional in 2008, after about 6 years of George W. Bush and his administration working hard to keep detainees in Guantanamo Bay without due process of the law. In this case, the Supreme Court finally ruled that they do have a right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention and to be seen in front of a neutral judge.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Blanca Henkle
    Blanca HenkleJun 2, 2019
    I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. All individual should be afforded the right to habeas corpus under the constitution.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Jacob Mattenson
    Jacob MattensonMay 29, 2019
    This case ruled that the MCA could not overrule the right to writ of habeas corpus and due process. This worked to limit the powers of the Executive by way of restriciting the judicial authority of the military.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 29, 2019
    This case reversed a prior decision in Rasul v Bush that detainees as Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to Habeas Corpus. They are entitled to fifth amendment protections and detainees can challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 15, 2018
    Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding that Guantanamo detainees have a right to file habeas corpus petitions. The legal provisions which suspended this right were found to be unconstitutional. All previous Guantanamo detainees’ corpus petitions were found to be eligible for reinstatement. The Supreme Court reached its decision on the grounds that the United States has solitary control over Guantanamo Bay and, therefore, the prison is within the statutory jurisdiction of the US federal courts.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 14, 2018
    The Court upholds the ideas of human rights being given to all people. I agree with Sufyan in stating that Scalia’s dissent is not particularly germane to the Constitutional discussion and focuses on somewhat hateful rhetoric as reasoning to deprive people of rights.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 9, 2018
    the significance of this case is that all prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are allowed to question the reasoning behind their imprisonment.

    This is another case in regards to enemy combatants after the attacks of 9/11.

    I have fund this video to be very helpful.

    
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userJun 9, 2018
    Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

    Is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?

    Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?

    Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Andrew Tuider
    Andrew TuiderJun 9, 2018
    This case effectivley extends the ruling of Rasul v. Bush, which gave US nationals the right to seek habeas corpus in Guantanamo Bay, to foreign nationals and anyone detained at Guantanamo Bay. This is significant because it extended constitutional rights to non citizens, which I would say is a good thing thing to have.
    Reply
    Zara Khan
    Zara Khan
    Hi Andrew, I completely agree with your statement that this case is significant because it extended constitutional rights to non-citizens, because I strongly believe that each and every human being deserves constitutional rights.
    Jun 10, 2018 (edited Jun 10, 2018)•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 29, 2018
    This is the opening to Justice Scalia’s (RIP) dissent: “I think it appropriate to begin with a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today.

    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. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). 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. See id., at 552, n. 9. 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. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

    The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s 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 Court’s blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today.”

    This is the furthest I’ve ever seen a dissent go from discussing the legal matter/precedent in a case. J. Scalia goes on to argue that writs of habeas corpus should not apply and shouldn’t have ever applied to aliens. I fully disagree with J. Scalia as I believe that noone should be held without being charged or given access to an attorney. Regardless of the circumstance that J. Scalia here presents, it is morally bankrupt to strip someone of their human rights in the name of war. The court decided correctly.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userMay 28, 2018
    This case is significant because it established those who were detained at Guantanamo Bay have the right to seek habeas coups and I think that this important because it established that those were detained, could no longer just be held against their rights without due process of law by an act made by the president but still were guaranteed rights to have their cases be examined to determine their detention .
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 29, 2017
    Argument for Opposing Side: The Bush Admin. arguments center around that alien enemies that are detained abroad are not privileged to the right of habeas corpus. This side also argues that the courts do not have jurisdiction because of the extraterritorial nature of the activities, and therefore the Suspension Clause cannot be applied in this case. To overturn the Military Commissions Act, one argument from the appellant (and the majority opinion) is the precedent of Johnson v Eisentrager, but Justice Scalia in the dissent describes how Eisentrager presented a situation in which American courts did not have habeas jurisdiction, akin to this case.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 29, 2017
    Constitutional questions:
    1. Is the Military Commission Act of 2006, an act in which interpreted to be prohibiting foreign individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay the right to Habeas Corpus, unconstitutional?
    2. Do those individuals have the right to habeas corpus under the constitution?
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 29, 2017
    Justices Roberts and Scalia’s dissent asserted that prisoners detained at Guantanamo were not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus. Roberts dissented that Congress had designed a system which would protect “whatever rights the detainees may posses.” Scalia argued that “aliens abroad” are not and were never entitled to the protection of the writ of habeas corpus.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 29, 2017
    I. Boumediene v. Bush

    II. 553 US 723 (2008)

    III. Facts: In 2002, Lakhbar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police and brought to Guantanamo Bay for their suspected involvement to attack a US Embassy in Bosnia. The US government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging violations of the Constitutional’s Due Process Clause, various statues and treaties, the common law, and international law. The District Court judge granted the government motion to have all claims dismissed. On the grounds that an alien detained overseas on military base had no right to a habeas petition because of the Military Commission Act of 2006. The Supreme Court in a rare reversal in Rasul v. Bush held that alien detained captured abroad and held at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to use a writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention.

    IV. Issues: Do aliens who are “enemy combatants” have the right to habeas corpus under the constitution?

    V. Decisions and Actions: Yes

    VI. Reasoning: Aliens who are enemy combats do have the right to habeas corpus under the constitution. The constitution believed that it was a basic principle of liberty to enjoy freedom from unlawful restrains and the writ of habeas corpus was a provision meant to make this freedom secure. The Suspension Clause states that habeas corpus can only be suspended in cases of threat to public safety, rebellion, or invasion.

    VII. Summary: The verdict stated that all prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are allowed to question the reasoning behind their imprisonment.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 28, 2017
    Team 3:
    Holding and reasoning: The majority court ruled in favor of Boumediene, arguing that the procedures listed by the Detainee Treatment Act were not adequate to substitute writs of habeas corpus, therefore finding the Military Commission Act was an unconstitutional suspension of the right to habeas corpus. Furthermore, the court reasoned that individuals were not exempt from the ability to seek writs of habeas corpus just because they were classified as enemy combatants or being held at Guantanamo Bay.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 28, 2017
    This ruling allowed Guantanamo detainees to submit habeas corpus petitions directly to a federal judge. This means that detainees could have their charges questioned by a judge who would then determine its convictability. This would imply that even if someone was charged with terrorism, they would be able to have their charges questioned.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 23, 2016
    The District Court judge granted the government’s motion to have all of the claims dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas military base, had no right to a habeas petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, which held that the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 23, 2016
    (4) Questions

    1. Do federal courts have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign “enemy combatants” detained at Guantanamo Bay?

    2. Is the Military Act of 2006 in conflict with the suspension clause of the constitution?

    3. Are foreign enemy combatants afforded the right to due process of law and are they allowed to dispute the legitimacy of their arrest?
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 22, 2016
    6. Concurring Opinion from Justice Souter:

    “…Four years ago, this Court in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U. S. 466 (2004) held that statutory habeas jurisdiction extended to claims of foreign nationals imprisoned by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, “to determine the legality of the Executive’s potentially indefinite detention” of them, id., at 485. Subsequent legislation eliminated the statutory habeas jurisdiction over these claims, so that now there must be constitutionally based jurisdiction or none at all. Justice Scalia is thus correct that here, for the first time, this Court holds there is (he says “confers”) constitutional habeas jurisdiction over aliens imprisoned by the military outside an area of de jure national sovereignty, see post, at 1 (dissenting opinion). But no one who reads the Court’s opinion in Rasul could seriously doubt that the jurisdictional question must be answered the same way in purely constitutional cases, given the Court’s reliance on the historical background of habeas generally in answering the statutory question. See, e.g., 542 U. S., at 473, 481–483, and nn. 11–14. Indeed, the Court in Rasul directly answered the very historical question that Justice Scalia says is dispositive, see post, at 18; it wrote that “[a]pplication of the habeas statute to persons detained at [Guantanamo] is consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus,” 542 U. S., at 481. Justice Scalia dismisses the statement as dictum, see post, at 21, but if dictum it was, it was dictum well considered, and it stated the view of five Members of this Court on the historical scope of the writ. Of course, it takes more than a quotation from Rasul, however much on point, to resolve the constitutional issue before us here, which the majority opinion has explored afresh in the detail it deserves. But whether one agrees or disagrees with today’s decision, it is no bolt out of the blue…”
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 22, 2016
    7. Boumediene v. Bush is important because it stopped the unnecessary detaining of Guantanamo bay prisoners. This case addresses the importance of seperation of powers.

    Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act states “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the U.S who has een determined by the U.S to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” But the suspension clause in the constitution states “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Constitutional rights were given to the detainees and writ of habeas corpus was granted.
    Reply
    Kevin Lyles
    Kevin Lyles
    “it stopped the unnecessary detaining of Guantanamo bay prisoners?” I disagree…
    Sep 22, 2016•Edit•Delete
    Comments above copied from original document
    Kevin Lyles
    James Betzelos
    James BetzelosSep 22, 2016
    2) Even though Guantanamo Bay is not technically a U.S. territory, the U.S. has complete jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay; Cuba does not. Therefore, Guantanamo detainees are allowed the same habeas rights as those being held on U.S. soil. Denying habeas rights to Guantanamo prisoners violates the Suspension Clause which states that habeas corpus can only be suspended when there is a rebellion or invasion. There was no invasion.
    The Suspension Clause provides a legitimate check on the power of the President and Congress because of the fact that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userSep 22, 2016
    5. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor for Lakhdar Boumediene.

    The opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy states that if the Military Commissions Act (The Act’s stated purpose was to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes) is considered binding its legislative history demands that the detainees’ cases must be dismissed. (Boumediene was on of several aliens captured at battlefields around the world, and was then held at Guantanamo Bay.)
    The court went on to say that because the procedures in the Detainee Treatment Act are not sufficient alternatives for the writ of habeas corpus, the commissions act operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The Court conveyed that the writ of habeas corpus could be invoked as a constitutional right for petitioners at all times when the Suspension Clause had not been invoked to suspend the writ. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and found in favor of the detainees.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Demitri Kladis
    Demitri KladisSep 22, 2016
    1. Facts: Back in 2002, Lakhdar Boumediene and several others were arrested and brought to Guantanamo Bay. They were arrested because of their involvement to attack a U.S. Embassy in Bosnia. Boumediene demanded for a writ of habeas corpus, but was initially refused because of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This act suspended the right for federal courts to hear habeas corpus applications from detainees captured. The Supreme Course took the case.
    Reply

    Reply