Craft & Sheppard's Supreme Court Review

Habeas Corpus

Prisoners in the War on Terror, non-citizen enemy combatants, had been held up to six years at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  By treaty, the U.S. completely controls Guantanamo Bay.  The enemy combatants filed writs of habeas corpus challenging their detentions.  Historically, the writ has secured liberty and checked executive abuse.   Since the Insular Cases, the Court has ruled that the Constitution in part follows the flag when the U.S. takes new territories.  Here, the procedures set up to challenge these detentions’ validity did not give detainees the right to counsel before the initial tribunal or effectively the right to challenge evidence against them.  In a 5-4 decision, Boumediene, Bush, the Court found that the detainees may file habeas proceedings to challenge their detentions, that Congress did not properly withdraw habeas as required by the Suspension Clause, Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and that one part of the 2006 Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional.  Separately, in Munaf v. Geren, at Iraq’s request, the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF), an international coalition, including U.S. forces, operated under the unified command controlled by the U.S.  MNF forces detained two American citizens who aided the enemy and committed crimes in Iraq.  After presenting evidence against them and giving them a right to be heard and call witnesses, a military tribunal ordered them detained for transfer and prosecution under Iraqi law in Iraqi courts.  Though federal courts had jurisdiction to hear the habeas claims, like any sovereign, Iraq may prosecute them for crimes committed within its borders.  The Court did not grant habeas relief.