Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Facts

In the Court opinion, the plaintiffs are described as 2 Australian citizens and 12 Kuwaiti citizens who were captured and detained by American authorities.  Relatives of the Kuwaitee detainees allege that the detainees were taken captive “by local villagers seeking promised bounties or other financial rewards” while they were providing humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and were subsequently turned over to U.S. custody.  Rasul v. George W. Bush, 124 S.Ct. 2686 at 2691 (2004).  Australian plaintiff David Hicks was allegedly captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance, a coalition of Afghan groups aligned with the U.S. occupation.Australian plaintiff Mamdouh Habib was allegedly arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities and turned over to Egyptian authorities, who in turn transferred him to U.S. custody.

According to a BBC article published on March 9, 2004 (immediately after the release of Shafiq Rasul), Rasul was a 24 year old British national who lived in Tipton and attended Alexandra High School.He traveled to Pakistan in October 2001 for a computer course, and his family lost contact with him in December of that year, likely due to his capture by the U.S. His family was made aware of his detention when the British Foreign Office contacted them in January 2002.

Procedural Background

Non-U.S. citizens detained by the United States as a result of the global War on Terror and held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, brought these actions contesting the legality and conditions of their confinement and claiming a constitutional right to habeas corpus.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.215 F. Supp. 2d 55.  An appeal was taken.321 F.3d 1134. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Holdings

The Supreme Court held that:

1. The federal habeas statute confers jurisdiction on district courts to hear challenges of non-U.S. citizens held at Guantanamo Bay, and
2. The district court can exercise jurisdiction over claims asserted under the federal question statute and the Alien Tort Statute.

Claims and Causes of Action

Habib and Hicks each filed a habeas petition seeking:

1. Release from custody,
2. Access to counsel,
3. Freedom from interrogations, and other relief.Id.

Al Odah and the other 11 Kuwaiti plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking:

1. To be informed of the charges against them,
2. To be allowed to meet with their families and with counsel,
3. And to have access to the courts or some other impartial tribunal.Id.

The plaintiffs’ causes of action were invoked under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§555, 702, 706; the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. §1350; and the general federal habeas corpus statute, §§2241-2243. App. 19.

Case Summary

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer joined.Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Rehnquist and Thomas joined.

Because Rasul is the first Supreme Court decision on the issue of detention at Guantanamo Bay, the Court spends much of the opinion dealing with the status of Guantanamo Bay as an American territory.  Notably, the Court begins by invoking the events of September 11, 2001 and American national anger and fear as a result of those events.

The question in this case is whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear the claims of non-citizen petitioners held in custody in a territory over which the United States “exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not ultimate sovereignty.” Rasul, 124 S.Ct. at 2693 (internal quotations omitted).The Court states that the habeas statute draws no distinction between Americans and aliens held in federal custody.Id. at 2696.Thus, the issue is not the citizenship status of the detainees, but legal status of the territory on which they are held – what constitutional rights do people held at Guantanamo Bay have?

Ultimately, the Court decides that the writ of habeas corpus is not dependent on the prisoner’s presence within the jurisdiction of the district court, but rather the presence of the person who holds him in custody.Consequently, since no one challenges “the District Court’s jurisdiction over petitioners’ custodians”, federal courts do have jurisdiction to hear the claims of petitioners held captive at Guantanamo Bay.

Where is Shafiq Rasul now?

Rasul was released in March 2004 to Great Britain three months before this Supreme Court decision came down.

In a 115 page report called “Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo”, Rasul, along with Asef Iqbal and Ruhal Ahmed, describe in detail the torture and abuse they experienced while in American custody.The report is discussed in a BBC article, “Britons Allege Guantanamo Abuse”, from August 4, 2004.

Suggested Citation: Nina Farnia, Rasul v. Bush, UNDERSTANDING RACE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CRITICAL RACE STUDIES (Jerry Kang, et., 2009),http://crsonline.law.ucla.edu/Encyclopedia/Special_Collections/Theme/War_on_Terror/I._The_Cases/Rasul_v._Bush