Court Remands GITMO Case Regarding Release of Detainees Into United States

Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022 (D.D.C. 2009), cert. granted, No. 08-1234, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 7566 (U.S. Oct. 20, 2009), and vacated, 559 U.S.___ (2010)

Petitioners, Uighurs who have been detained at Guantanamo for over eight years, filed a habeas petition challenging their indefinite detention. The district court ordered the government to release them into the United States. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the court lacked authority to order the government to release the petitioners into the United States. Specifically, inter alia, the court said that the entry of aliens into U.S. is solely within the control of the political branches; individuals outside the U.S. do not have due process rights; and habeas jurisdiction alone does not provide the court with authority to provide this remedy (i.e., release into the United States). The Uighurs filed a petition for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to consider the following question: “Whether a federal court exercising its habeas jurisdiction, as confirmed by Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ---, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), has no power to order the release of prisoners held by the Executive for seven years, where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy.”

Arguably, this case does not involve immigration concerns because the petitioners never sought admission to the United States, rather, they were involuntarily brought by the government into the jurisdiction of the United States. Nonetheless, the government argued that immigration case law controls and the plenary power doctrine controls and precludes the court from ordering the government to release petitioners into the U.S.

The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments in this case on March 23, 2010. On February 12, 2010, the Supreme Court directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing what effect, if any, subsequent offers to the petitioners of resettlement to another country should have on the Court’s grant of certiorari. On March 1, 2010, the court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to determine what further proceedings were necessary or appropriate in light of the new developments. The court found that no other court had previously ruled on this case taking into account the new facts and the Supreme Court, as a court of review, declined to be the first to do so.

Read more about the history of this case at the Center for Constitutional Rights website.

Read the Supreme Court briefs in this case at the ABA website.

Read the Supreme Court slip opinion in this case at the Supreme Court website.