Boumediene v. Bush

rdf:langString Boumediene v. Bush

rdf:langString v.

rdf:langString Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners

rdf:langString George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.

rdf:langString Roberts

rdf:langString Scalia

rdf:langString Scalia, Thomas, Alito

rdf:langString Roberts, Thomas, Alito

rdf:langString Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

rdf:langString Boumediene v. Bush,

rdf:langString v.

rdf:langString Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners

rdf:langString George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.

rdf:langString Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts. Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unconstitutional.

rdf:langString Boumediene v. Bush

rdf:langString Kennedy

rdf:langString Supreme Court

rdf:langString Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007. On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5–4 majority, holding that the prisoners had a right to the writ of habeas corpus under the United States Constitution (and in particular the Suspension Clause) and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains de facto sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court had expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees, rejecting petitioners' arguments, but the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to the Guantanamo detainees as well. Invoking Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court concluded: The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is'. Along with Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), this was a landmark case in the Court's detainee jurisprudence.

rdf:langString Souter

rdf:langString Ginsburg, Breyer