Understanding Terrorism Cases
Rasul v. Bush 2004 - Current Cases
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 sent to prison abroad.
In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which permitted the United States to use force against any government, individual, or organization connected with the attack and to detain enemy combatants. Two Australians and 12 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 confinement. 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 the federal courts had jurisdiction in this matter under the precedent set in the Eisentrager case. In other words, was the military base at Guantanamo Bay a U.S. or foreign territory? The government argued that it was foreign territory. Citing the terms of the treaty with the Republic of Cuba concerning Guantanamo Bay, the government argued that the United States could lease the land, but Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty. The petitioners argued that the United States effectively controlled the land, and, thus, it was not foreign territory. Writing for the majority of the Court, Justice Stevens held that since the United States 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 was the controlling law.
Facts
In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over foreign nationals who were detained in other countries for offenses that occurred in other countries. During the War on Terror, several foreign nationals, including 2 Australians and 12 Kuwaitis, were apprehended, labeled enemy combatants, and detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They filed for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their confinement. The government claimed that, pursuant to Eisentrager, the Courts have no jurisdiction in these matters.
Issue
Do the federal courts have jurisdiction to grant writs of habeas corpus to foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who challenge the legality of their confinement?
Ruling (6-3)
Yes.
Reasoning
Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, stated that since the United States effectively controlled Guantanamo Bay, Eisentrager did not apply and foreign detainees could file for writs of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their confinement. Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined this opinion. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring with the judgment. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas joined.
General Discussion Starters
1. How do you feel about the decision in the Eisentrager case? Should individuals tried for crimes by a part of the American government (i.e., the military) be given a subsequent chance to challenge the legality of those proceedings in an American court by filing for a writ of habeas corpus?
2. Does it make any difference that the Eisentrager case dealt with convicted war criminals, while this case deals with noncriminal confinement? If the military were to try these or other foreign detainees for war crimes, could/should the judgment of the military courts be subjected to habeas review by federal courts? What if the military court were multinational?
3. The Court ruled that foreigners must be given the opportunity to challenge the legality of their confinement via means of a writ of habeas corpus. Can you think of any situations in which this rule should not apply? If so, how would you make your case to the Supreme Court? |
