Due Process is the topic of the day and it is an important one. The leading opinion from the United States Supreme Court on this topic is the decision in Boumediene v. Bush from 2008. Here's a breakdown of the key elements of the decision, and because Chief Justice John Roberts is an important voice on any Due Process challenge today, we have included a summary of his dissent in this important case. You can also read the text of the opinion by clicking here.
1. Legal Question at Issue:
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus for foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay who had been designated as enemy combatants. Essentially, did Congress have the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from these detainees? This involved considering the scope of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2), which states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
2. Court's Holding:
The Supreme Court held that Section 7 of the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay did have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, and that the procedures established by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) were not an adequate substitute for habeas review. Therefore, the federal courts did have jurisdiction to hear the detainees' habeas petitions.
3. Reasoning Behind the Opinion:
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reasoned as follows:
- The Importance of Habeas Corpus: The Court emphasized the historical importance of the writ of habeas corpus as a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty and a critical mechanism for maintaining the separation of powers. The Suspension Clause was designed to protect against abuses of power by the executive and legislative branches.
- Extraterritoriality and the Suspension Clause: The Court rejected the government's argument that the Suspension Clause did not apply to Guantanamo Bay because the United States did not have formal sovereignty over the base. The Court reasoned that the reach of the Suspension Clause turned on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalistic notions of sovereignty. They considered the detainees' status, the nature of the site of detention, and the practical obstacles to granting the writ.
- Inadequacy of the DTA Review Process: The Court found that the DTA's procedures for reviewing detainees' status were not an adequate substitute for habeas corpus because they were too limited. Detainees had limited ability to challenge the factual basis for their detention, to present exculpatory evidence, or to challenge the President's authority to detain them indefinitely. The Court emphasized that a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that one is being held unlawfully is essential to habeas review.
4. Summary of Chief Justice Roberts' Dissent:
Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the majority's decision was a dramatic departure from precedent and would have serious consequences for national security. He made the following key points:
- Premature Ruling: Roberts believed the Court should have allowed the D.C. Circuit to determine whether the procedures set forth in the DTA were an adequate substitute for habeas review.
- Respect for Political Branches: The dissent emphasized the need for deference to the political branches (the President and Congress) in matters of national security. Roberts argued that the Court was overstepping its role by second-guessing the decisions of the other branches.
- Practical Concerns: Roberts raised concerns about the practical difficulties of holding habeas hearings for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the potential for these proceedings to disrupt military operations and expose classified information.
- Eisentrager Precedent: Roberts argued that the majority was wrongly interpreting the Supreme Court's prior decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), which had held that enemy aliens detained outside the United States had no right to habeas corpus. He believed that Eisentrager supported the government's argument that the Suspension Clause did not apply to the Guantanamo detainees.
In essence, Roberts' dissent argued that the majority's decision was an unwarranted intrusion into the realm of national security and would create significant practical problems without providing any meaningful benefit to the detainees.
Girards Law Firm pursues cases involving severe injury or wrongful death in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com and use the Chat feature to arrange for a free consultation.