Maqaleh v. Gates, 09-5265
| Decision Date | 21 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | 09-5266,09-5267.,No. 09-5265,09-5265 |
| Citation | 605 F.3d 84 |
| Parties | Fadi AL MAQALEH, Detainee and Ahmad Al Maqaleh, as Next Friend of Fadi Al Maqaleh, Appelleesv.Robert M. GATES, Secretary, United States Department of Defense, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, (No. 1:06-cv-01669-JDB).
Neal Kumar Katyal, Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas N. Letter and Robert M. Loeb, Attorneys.
David B. Rivkin Jr., Lee A. Casey, and Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky were on the brief for amici curiae Special Forces Association, et al. in support of appellants.
Tina Monshipour Foster argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Barbara J. Olshansky and Ramzi Kassem.
George Brent Mickum IV was on the brief for amici curiae Constitutional Law Scholars in support of appellees and affirmance.
Walter Dellinger and Matthew Shors were on the brief for amici curiae Non-Governmental Organizations in support of appellees.
Paul M. Smith and Emily Berman were on the brief for amicus curiae Retired Military Officers in support of appellees.
Douglas W. Baruch was on the brief for amici curiae Professors of International Human Rights Law and Related Subjects in support of appellees.
Before SENTELLE, Chief Judge, TATEL, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge SENTELLE.
Three detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan petitioned the district court for habeas corpus relief from their confinement by the United States military.1 Appellants (collectively “the United States” or “the government”) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on § 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub.L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006) (“MCA”). The district court greed with the United States that § 7(a) of the MCA purported to deprive the court of jurisdiction, but held that this section could not constitutionally be applied to deprive the court of jurisdiction under the Supreme Court's test articulated in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008). The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss but certified the three habeas cases for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Pursuant to that certification, the government filed a petition to this court for interlocutory appeal. We granted the petition and now consider the jurisdictional question. Upon review, and applying the Supreme Court decision in Boumediene, we determine that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the petitions for habeas corpus. We therefore reverse the order of the district court and order that the petitions be dismissed.
All three petitioners are being held as unlawful enemy combatants at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility on the Bagram Airfield Military Base in Afghanistan.2 Petitioner Fadi Al-Maqaleh is a Yemeni citizen who alleges he was taken into custody in 2003. While Al-Maqaleh's petition asserts “on information and belief” that he was captured beyond Afghan borders, a sworn declaration from Colonel James W. Gray, Commander of Detention Operations, states that Al-Maqaleh was captured in Zabul, Afghanistan. Redha Al-Najar is a Tunisian citizen who alleges he was captured in Pakistan in 2002. Amin Al-Bakri is a Yemeni citizen who alleges he was captured in Thailand in 2002. Both Al-Najar and Al-Bakri allege they were first held in some other unknown location before being moved to Bagram.
Bagram Airfield Military Base is the largest military facility in Afghanistan occupied by United States and coalition forces. The United States entered into an “Accommodation Consignment Agreement for Lands and Facilities at Bagram Airfield” with the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 2006, which “consigns all facilities and land located at Bagram Airfield ... owned by [Afghanistan,] or Parwan Province, or private individuals, or others, for use by the United States and coalition forces for military purposes.” (Accommodation and Consignment Agreement for Lands and Facilities at Bagram Airfield Between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America) (internal capitalization altered). The Agreement refers to Afghanistan as the “host nation” and the United States “as the lessee.” The leasehold created by the agreement is to continue “until the United States or its successors determine that the
[605 F.3d 356] premises are no longer required for its use.” Id. (internal capitalization altered).
Afghanistan remains a theater of active military combat. The United States and coalition forces conduct “an ongoing military campaign against al Qaeda, the Taliban regime, and their affiliates and supporters in Afghanistan.” These operations are conducted in part from Bagram Airfield. Bagram has been subject to repeated attacks from the Taliban and al Qaeda, including a March 2009 suicide bombing striking the gates of the facility, and Taliban rocket attacks in June of 2009 resulting in death and injury to United States service members and other personnel.
While the United States provides overall security to Bagram, numerous other nations have compounds on the base. Some of the other nations control access to their respective compounds. The troops of the other nations are present at Bagram both as part of the American-led military coalition in Afghanistan and as members of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The mission of the ISAF is to support the Afghan government in the maintenance of security in Afghanistan. See S.C. Res. 1386, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1386 (Dec. 20, 2001); S.C. Res. 1510, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1510 (Oct. 13, 2003); S.C. Res. 1833, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1833 (Sept. 22, 2008). According to the United States, as of February 1, 2010, approximately 38,000 non-United States troops were serving in Afghanistan as part of the ISAF, representing 42 other countries. See International Security Assistance Force, International Security Assistance Force and Afghan National Army Strength & Laydown, h ttp:// www. nato. int/ isaf/ docu/ epub/ pdf/ placemat. pdf.
Appellees in this action, three detainees at Bagram, filed habeas petitions against the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense in the district court. The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, relying principally upon § 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The district court consolidated these three cases and a fourth case, not a part of these proceedings, for argument. After the change in presidential administrations on January 22, 2009, the court invited the government to express any change in its position on the jurisdictional question. The government informed the district court that it “adheres to its previously articulated position.”
The district court, recognizing that the issue of whether the court had jurisdiction presented a controlling question of law as to which there were substantial grounds for difference of opinion, certified the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 620 F.Supp.2d 51, 54-56 (D.D.C.2009). We accepted the case for interlocutory review, In re Gates, No. 09-8004, 2009 U.S.App. LEXIS 17032 (D.C.Cir. July 30, 2009), bringing the jurisdictional issue before us in the present appeal.
While we will discuss specific points of law in more detail below, for a full understanding, we must first set forth some of the legal history underlying the controversy over the availability of the writ of habeas corpus and the constitutional protections it effectuates to noncitizens of the United States held beyond the sovereign territory of the United States. The Supreme Court first addressed this issue in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 70 S.Ct. 936, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950). In
[605 F.3d 357] Eisentrager 21 German nationals petitioned the district court for writs of habeas corpus. The Eisentrager petitioners had been convicted by a military commission in China of “engaging in, permitting or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan.” Id. at 766, 70 S.Ct. 936. Because, during that period, the United States and Germany were no longer at war, hostile acts against the United States by German citizens were violations of the law of war. Petitioners were captured in China, tried in China, and repatriated to Germany to serve their sentences in Landsberg Prison, a facility under the control of the United States as part of the Allied Powers' post-war occupation. Id. None ever entered the United States, nor were any held in the United States.
Petitioners sought habeas relief, alleging that their confinement was in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Geneva Convention. Id. at 767, 70 S.Ct. 936; see also Eisentrager v. Forrestal, 174 F.2d 961 (D.C.Cir.1949). The district court held that under Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898 (1948), statutory jurisdiction over habeas petitions did not extend to aliens who were neither confined nor convicted in the district of the court and whose custodians were beyond geographic boundaries of the district in which the court sat. The court dismissed the writ. The petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment.
The Court of Appeals read Ahrens as having left open the governing questions of the controversy before it, and held that since “[t]he right to habeas corpus is an inherent common law right,” Eisentrager v. Forrestal, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hela v. Trump
...before a court with the power to order conditional release. Boumediene , 553 U.S. at 779, 128 S.Ct. 2229 ; see Al Maqaleh v. Gates , 605 F.3d 84, 93–94 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (applying Boumediene to determine when aliens abroad are covered by the Suspension Clause). We review the district court's......
-
Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...territory of the United States may petition for habeas corpus to challenge the constitutionality of their detention); Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84, 95–96 (D.C.Cir.2010) (location of alien outside the United States is only a factor in determining the extraterritorial reach of the Constit......
-
United States v. Siddiqui
...corpus relief and the protection of the Suspension Clause to aliens held in Executive detention at Bagram Airfield. Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84, 99 (D.C.Cir.2010). 10. Of course, the strictures of Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403 still apply to Rule 404(b) evidence. The evid......
-
Al-Aulaqi v. Obama
...present in the courtroom. See, e.g., Al-Maqaleh v. Gates, 604 F.Supp.2d 205, 228 (D.D.C.2009), rev'd and remanded on other grounds, 605 F.3d 84 (D.C.Cir.2010) (explaining that "real-time video conferencing provides a workable substitute for an in-court appearance" and noting that this "is t......
-
Separation of Powers, Individual Rights, and the Constitution Abroad
...noted, 15. Id. ; Boumediene , 476 F.3d at 992. 16. Boumediene , 553 U.S. at 766–71. 17. See id. at 764–66; see also Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84, 98–99 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Transcript of Oral Argument at 44, 49, 51, Al Maqaleh , 605 F.3d 84 (No. 09-5265) (noting that the functional test ar......
-
Who May Be Held? Military Detention through the Habeas Lens
...as LAWMAKING (2010), available at http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0122_guantanamo _wittes_chesney.aspx. 13. Cf Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (holding that habeas jurisdiction does not extend to Afghanistan, though noting caveats that preserve the possibility of a di......
-
Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court?s Misreading of the Insular Cases
...step in an expansion of habeas jurisdiction and other constitutional rights to aliens abroad.”). 57. See, e.g. , Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84, 93–94 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (considering the Insular Cases in deciding whether Boumediene extends protection to detainees held by the U.S. military i......
-
Charting a Course Toward a Legal Challenge in At-sea Interdiction and Custody Scenarios: Habeas Corpus as a Light on the Horizon
...constant jurisdiction’” of the United States may have some constitutional rights). 101. See, e.g., Al Maqaleh v. Gates (Al Maqaleh II), 605 F.3d 84, 94–99 (D.C. Cir. 2010), remanded to 899 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2012); Amanatullah v. Obama, 904 F. Supp. 2d 45, 55–57 (D.D.C. 2012); Wahid v. ......