In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763. In this case, the Court ruled that Nazi war criminals who were captured in China, tried by a U.S. military commission, and sentenced to prison terms in Germany were not entitled to habeas corpus relief in a federal court. The Court's reasoning was that the jurisdiction of federal courts does not extend to members of foreign countries who are tried, convicted, and serving sentences abroad.
In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) which permitted the United States to use force against any governments, individuals, or organizations connected with the attack and to detain enemy combatants. Two Australians and twelve Kuwaitis captured abroad and held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as enemy combatants filed for writs of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the legality of their confinements. Among other things, they demanded to know the charges against them, and they claimed that they had never been combatants.
By the time the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the main issue was whether or not the federal courts had jurisdiction in this matter under the precedent set in the Eisentrager case. In other words, is the military base at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. or foreign territory? The government argued that it is foreign territory. Citing the terms of the Treaty with the Republic of Cuba concerning Guantanamo Bay, the government argued that the U.S. could lease the land but Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty. The petitioners argued that the U.S. effectively controlled the land and, thus, it is not foreign territory. Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Stevens held that since the U.S. effectively controlled Guantanamo Bay, Eisentrager did not apply in this case. The Court therefore concluded that the petitioners were entitled to challenge the legality of their confinement in federal court. Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Scalia said that the majority ignored the Eisentrager precedent and confused the military as to what is the controlling law. |
