Boumediene v. Bush, 549 U.S. 1328 (2007)

In Boumediene v. Bush, the petitioners, Lakhdar Boumediene and Khaled A. F. Al Odah, are foreign nationals who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for over five years without having their habeas corpus claims judicially reviewed. They challenged the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which they argued stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear their habeas claims. The case arose from their contention that their prolonged detention without judicial oversight violated their fundamental rights and that the Act's provisions were unconstitutional. The procedural history of the case began with the petitioners filing for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking review of the lower court's decision that upheld the jurisdictional limitations imposed by the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court received the petitions and ultimately decided to deny certiorari, prompting Justice Breyer's dissent, which emphasized the need for immediate judicial review of the petitioners' claims to clarify the application of habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo. The background context includes the Supreme Court's prior ruling in Rasul v. Bush (2004), which established that federal courts had jurisdiction to consider habeas claims from Guantanamo detainees, asserting that the U.S. had complete control over the territory. The petitioners argued that the reasoning from Rasul should apply to their current situation, as the fundamental right to habeas corpus should extend to them despite the new restrictions imposed by the Military Commissions Act. This case highlighted ongoing legal and constitutional debates surrounding the rights of detainees and the extent of executive power in matters of national security.

Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 deprives courts of jurisdiction to consider the habeas claims of foreign citizens imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and if so, whether that deprivation is constitutional.

The petitions for certiorari are granted, and the motions to expedite the cases are approved.

Prisoners of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, brought these cases to challenge the authority the Military Commis­sions Act of 2006, which established military tribunals for trying Guantanamo Bay prisoners, as unconstitutionally stripping courts of jurisdiction to consider their habeas claims. The Court denied certiorari in this case, but Justice Breyer (joined in part by Justices Souter and Ginsburg) wrote a dissent to the denial of certiorari explaining why he believes the Court should have granted certiorari.