Rasul v. Bush

Decision Date30 July 2002
Docket NumberNos. CIV.A. 02-299(CKK), CIV.A. 02-828(CKK).,s. CIV.A. 02-299(CKK), CIV.A. 02-828(CKK).
PartiesShafiq RASUL, Skina Bibi, as Next Friend of Shafiq Rasul, et al., Petitioners, v. George Walker BUSH, President of the United States, et al., Respondents. Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

L. Barrett Boss, Asbill, Moffitt & Boss, Chartered, Washington, DC, Jon W. Norris, Washington, DC, for petitioners.

Robert Daniel Okun, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court are two cases involving the federal government's detention of certain individuals at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The question presented to the Court by these two cases is whether aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States can use the courts of the United States to pursue claims brought under the United States Constitution. The Court answers that question in the negative and finds that it is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of these two cases. Additionally, as the Court finds that no court would have jurisdiction to hear these actions, the Court shall dismiss both suits with prejudice.

Throughout their pleadings and at oral argument, Petitioners and Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court assumes jurisdiction over their suits, they will be left without any rights and thereby be held incommunicado. In response to this admittedly serious concern, the government at oral argument, conceded that "there's a body of international law that governs the rights of people who are seized during the course of combative activities." Transcript of Motion Hearing, June 26, 2002 ("Tr.") at 92. It is the government's position that "the scope of those rights are for the military and political branches to determine-and certainly that reflects the idea that other countries would play a role in that process." Id. at 91. Therefore, the government recognizes that these aliens fall within the protections of certain provisions of international law and that diplomatic channels remain an ongoing and viable means to address the claims raised by these aliens.1 While these two cases provide no opportunity for the Court to address these issues, the Court would point out that the notion that these aliens could be held incommunicado from the rest of the world would appear to be inaccurate.

After reviewing the extensive briefings in these cases, considering the oral arguments of the parties and their oral responses to the Court's questions, and reflecting on the relevant case law, the Court shall grant the government's motion to dismiss in both cases on the ground that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain these claims.2

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioners in Rasul v. Bush, Civil Action No. 02-299, filed their case on February 19, 2002, and have styled their action as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal are citizens of the United Kingdom and are presently held in Respondents' custody at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Am. Pet. ¶¶ 10, 14. Petitioner David Hicks is an Australian citizen who is also detained by Respondents at the military base at Guantanamo Bay. Id. ¶ 5. Also included in the Petition are Skina Bibi, mother of Shafiq Rasul, Mohammed Iqbal, father of Asif Iqbal, and Terry Hicks, father of David Hicks. Petitioners request, inter alia, that this Court "[o]rder the detained petitioners released from respondents' unlawful custody," "[o]rder respondents to allow counsel to meet and confer with the detained petitioners, in private and unmonitored attorney-client conversations," and "[o]rder respondents to cease all interrogations of the detained petitioners, direct or indirect, while this litigation is pending." Am. Pet., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 4-6.

Plaintiffs in Odah v. United States, Civil Action No. 02-828, filed their action on May 1, 2002. The Odah case involves the detention of twelve Kuwaiti nationals who are currently being held in the custody of the United States at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Am. Compl. at 4. The action is concurrently brought by twelve of their family members who join the suit and speak on behalf of the individuals in United States custody. Id. Unlike Petitioners in Rasul, the Odah Plaintiffs disclaim that their suit seeks release from confinement. Rather, Plaintiffs in Odah ask this Court to enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the government from refusing to allow the Kuwaiti nationals to "meet with their families," "be informed of the charges, if any, against them," "designate and consult with counsel of their choice," and "have access to the courts or some other impartial tribunal." Id. ¶ 40.3 Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint contains three counts. First, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' conduct denies the twelve Kuwaiti nationals due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Id. ¶ 37. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' actions violate the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Id. ¶ 38. Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' conduct constitutes arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional behavior in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 555, 702, 706. Id. ¶ 39.

In the Rasul case, Respondents moved to dismiss the First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 18, 2002. This motion was fully briefed on April 29, 2002. On May 1, 2002, the Odah case was filed and Plaintiffs designated it as related to the Rasul matter. Thus, Odah was assigned to this Court. Plaintiffs in Odah moved for a preliminary injunction at the time they filed their suit. Instead of filing a memorandum in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction, Defendants in the Odah case moved to dismiss the action. That motion was fully briefed on June 14, 2002.4

At the time the Court received the motion to dismiss in the Odah matter, it became obvious to the Court that the government was moving to dismiss both cases primarily on jurisdictional grounds. Accordingly, the Court found it appropriate to make a threshold ruling on the jurisdictional question in both cases before conducting any further proceedings. Mindful of the importance of these suits, which raise concerns about the actions of the Executive Branch, the Court heard oral argument on the government's motion to dismiss in both cases on June 26, 2002.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND5
A. Rasul v. Bush

Little is known about Petitioner David Hicks except that he was allegedly living in Afghanistan at the time of his seizure by the United States Government. Am. Pet. ¶ 22. As for Petitioner Rasul, in the summer of 2001, he allegedly took a hiatus from studying for his computer engineering degree to travel. Id. ¶ 24. Allegedly, Petitioner Rasul's brother convinced him to move to Pakistan "to visit relatives and explore his culture." Id. Petitioner Rasul left the United Kingdom after September 11, 2001, and allegedly traveled to Pakistan solely to attempt to continue his education at less expense than it would cost to take similar courses in the United Kingdom. Id. Petitioner Rasul allegedly stayed with an Aunt in Lahore, Pakistan before engaging in further travel within that country. Id. Allegedly, forces fighting against the United States captured and kidnapped Petitioner Rasul after he left Lahore. Id.

As for Petitioner Iqbal, it is alleged that in July of 2001, his family arranged for him to marry a woman living in the same village in Pakistan as Petitioner Iqbal's father. Id. ¶ 23. After September 11, 2001, Petitioner Iqbal left the United Kingdom and allegedly traveled to Pakistan solely for the purpose of getting married. Id. In early October of 2001, shortly before the marriage, Petitioner Iqbal's father allegedly allowed Petitioner Iqbal to leave the village briefly. Id. After leaving the village, forces working in opposition to the United States allegedly captured Petitioner Iqbal. Id.

Petitioners Rasul, Iqbal, and Hicks were picked up in a region of the world where the United States is actively engaged in military hostilities authorized by a Joint Resolution of the United States Congress, passed on September 18, 2001, in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Joint Resolution authorizes the President to:

use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub.L. No. 107-40, § 2, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (cited in Am. Pet. ¶ 25). In the course of the military campaign authorized by the Joint Resolution, the United States attacked the Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan. Am. Pet. ¶ 25. While seeking to overthrow the Taliban, the United States provided military assistance to the Northern Alliance, "a loosely knit coalition of Afghani and other military groups opposed to the Taliban Government." Id. ¶ 26.

The Northern Alliance captured Petitioner David Hicks in Afghanistan and transferred custody of him to the United States on December 17, 2001. Id. ¶ 27. The precise circumstances surrounding Petitioner Rasul's and Petitioner Iqbal's capture are unknown. However, they appear to have been transferred to United States control in early December of 2001. Id. ¶ 28.

It is alleged in the Amended Petition that at no time did any of the Petitioners in United States custody voluntarily join any terrorist force. Id. ¶ 30.6 Additionally, if any of the Petitioners in United States...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Hisler v. Gallaudet University
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 21, 2004
    ... ... Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir.1999); Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55, 61 (D.D.C.2002) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 ... ...
  • Jerome Stevens Pharms. v. Food and Drug Admin.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 28, 2004
    ... ... Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir.1999); Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55, 61 (D.D.C.2002) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 ... ...
  • Bismullah v. Gates, 06-1197.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 1, 2008
    ... ... Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518-21, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) 9 ; see Boumediene v ... 514 F.3d 1298 ... Bush, 476 F.3d 981, 988-94 (D.C.Cir.2007) (holding alien detained as enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay has no constitutional right to writ of habeas ... Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55, 64 n. 10 (D.D.C.2002). I believe this is correct ...         Each of the detainees, according to their ... ...
  • Al Maqaleh v. Gates
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • April 2, 2009
    ... ... The issue at the heart of these cases is whether these petitioners may, in the wake of Boumediene v. Bush, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), invoke the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, Art I. § 9 cl. 2. If so, then section 7(a) ... Page 211 ... Procedure. See Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55, 61 (D.D.C.2002), aff'd, Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C.Cir.2003), rev'd on other grounds, Rasul v. Bush, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Guantanamo and the conflict of laws: Rasul and beyond.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 153 No. 6, June 2005
    • June 1, 2005
    ...detainees). (10) See Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134, 1136-37 (D.C. Cir. 2003). (11) See id. (12) See Al Odah v. United States, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002) (mem.), aff'd, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003). (13) 339 U.S. 763 (1950). (14) Id. at 790-91. (15) See Al Odah, 321 F.3d at......
  • Doctrines without borders: territorial jurisdiction and the force of international law in the wake of Rasul v. Bush.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 39 No. 1, January 2006
    • January 1, 2006
    ...limits on time prisoners are able to be held before any trial). (29.) See Gonzales, supra note 26. (30.) See, e.g., Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction detainees' challenge to their detention in Cuba), aff'd, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003)......
  • CHAPTER 14 GUANTANAMO BAY
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Federal Habeas Corpus: Cases and Materials (CAP)
    • Invalid date
    ...petitions for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that Guantanamo was outside the sovereign territory of the United States. Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002). The decision was affirmed on appeal, Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003), and the Supreme Court granted......
  • Rasul v. Bush.
    • United States
    • Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 25, February 2003
    • February 1, 2003
    ...District Court ALIEN Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002). Aliens being detained by the U.S. government at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and alleged violations of due process and the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). The district c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT