Will the location of most of these witnesses change—will they suddenly become easily susceptible to service of process? De jure sovereignty is a factor that bears upon which constitutional guarantees apply there. The political branches, consistent with their independent obligations to interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism. And, given there are few precedents addressing what features an adequate substitute for habeas corpus must contain, in all likelihood a remand simply would delay ultimate resolution of the issue by this Court. In the first set of cases, Judge Richard J. Attorneys for the government and 37 Guantanamo inmates focused on whether Congress had wrongly denied prisoners judicial review of their detention, or if Congress had created an adequate alternative for prisoners to contest their detention, and whether the Constitution protected the rights of foreigners held outside the country. And the chart format is useful in giving readers an understanding of the procedural history of the case. Those rules permit the tribunals to reject un reliable evidence based on any concerns regarding coer cion that may have arisen in the proceedings before them.
United States, 1890 ; Williams v. This premise, however, is unfounded. We have no reason to believe an order from a federal court would be disobeyed at Guantanamo. Congress enacted the statute at issue here in direct re sponse to Hamdan. Several months later, this Court decided Hamdan v.
Still, the writ proved to be an imperfect check. Accordingly, the plurality concentrated on whether the Executive had the authority to detain and, if so, what rights the detainee had under the Due Process Clause. In the end a categorical or formal conception of sovereignty does not provide a comprehensive or altogether satisfactory explanation for the general understanding that prevailed when Lord Mansfield considered issuance of the writ outside England. Felker, Swain, and Hayman stand for the proposition that the Suspension Clause does not resist innovation in the field of habeas corpus. Those later events would underscore the need for structural barriers against arbitrary suspensions of the writ.
To support their arguments, the parties in these cases have examined historical sources to construct a view of the common-law writ as it existed in 1789—as have amici whose expertise in legal history the Court has relied upon in the past. First, as aliens held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, petitioners may not invoke the protections of our Constitution, including those guaranteed by the Suspension Clause. This distinction, and not formal notions of sovereignty, may well explain why the writ did not run to Scotland and Hanover but would run to Ireland. Nothing in Eisentrager says that de jure sovereignty is or has ever been the only relevant consideration in determining the geographic reach of the Constitution or of habeas corpus. But even when the military has evidence that it can bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence to the attorneys representing our enemies. The §2241 habeas corpus process remained in place, id. In 1759 the writ did not run to Scotland but did run to Ireland, even though, at that point, Scotland and England had merged under the rule of a single sovereign, whereas the Crowns of Great Britain and Ireland remained separate at least in theory.
And there has been no showing that the Executive faces such onerous burdens that it cannot respond to habeas corpus actions. Finally, petitioners argue Al Odah Br. Each side in the present matter argues that the very lack of a precedent on point supports its position. The Act of 1640, 16 Car. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. As to the second factor relevant to this analysis, the detainees here are similarly situated to the Eisentrager petitioners in that the sites of their apprehension and detention are technically outside the sovereign territory of the United States. When Congress exercised its power to create new territories, it guaranteed constitutional protections to the inhabitants by statute.
Even after the Act of Union, Scotland like Hanover continued to maintain its own laws and court system. See 9 Holdsworth 124 citing Ex parte Anderson, 3 El. It places the unreasonable and avoidable burden of figuring out which were the first ref, when they left their comment. We upheld these provisions against a Suspension Clause challenge in Felker v. A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. What matters is the sum total of procedural protections afforded to the detainee at all stages, direct and collateral. He does not have the assistance of counsel and may not be aware of the most critical allegations that the Government relied upon to order his detention.
And the habeas court must have the power to order the conditional release of an individual unlawfully detained—though release need not be the exclusive remedy and is not the appropriate one in every case in which the writ is granted. Some 38 detainees have been released as a result of this process. Setting aside the fact that the relevant language in Hamdi did not garner a majority of the Court, it does not control the matter at hand. §23—110 g , 84 Stat. Brief for Petitioner Boumediene et al. The Court has been careful not to foreclose the possibility that the protections of the Suspension Clause have expanded along with post-1789 developments that define the present scope of the writ. Bush stated that all prisoners of Guantanamo Bay, even those who were suspected of terrorism are allowed to question the reasoning behind their imprisonment.
If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit for additional information. Lest there be any doubt about the primacy of territorial sovereignty in determining the jurisdiction of a habeas court over an alien, Justice Jackson distinguished two cases in which aliens had been permitted to seek habeas relief, on the ground that the prisoners in those cases were in custody within the sovereign territory of the United States. See Notice of Transfer at 3, Kiyemba v. There are others detained there, also aliens, who are not parties to this suit. The idea that the necessary scope of habeas review in part depends upon the rigor of any earlier proceedings accords with our test for procedural adequacy in the due process context. Consistent with the historic function and province of the writ, habeas corpus review may be more circumscribed if the underlying detention proceedings are more thorough than they were here. A constricted reading of Eisentrager overlooks what we see as a common thread uniting the Insular Cases, Eisentrager, and Reid: the idea that questions of extraterritoriality turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.