Facts
- Foreign nationals (including two Australians and twelve Kuwaitis) were captured abroad during hostilities involving the United States and the Taliban and detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
- The detainees asserted they were not combatants against the United States, had not engaged in terrorism, and had not been charged or given access to counsel or any tribunal.
- The United States held Guantánamo Bay under a 1903 lease in which Cuba retained “ultimate sovereignty,” while the United States exercised “complete jurisdiction and control” over the base.
- Families filed actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the court treated them as habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- The District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager to conclude aliens detained outside U.S. sovereign territory could not seek habeas.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed on the same jurisdictional rationale.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari in consolidated cases to decide whether federal courts could hear challenges to the legality of these detentions.
Issues
- Whether federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas petitions by foreign nationals captured abroad and detained at Guantánamo Bay.
- Whether the absence of U.S. “ultimate sovereignty” over Guantánamo defeats statutory habeas jurisdiction where the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control.
- Whether Johnson v. Eisentrager forecloses statutory habeas jurisdiction for these detainees.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding 6–3 that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to consider habeas challenges to the legality of detention of foreign nationals held at Guantánamo Bay.
- The Court construed § 2241 to reach persons held in a territory where the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction and control, even without “ultimate sovereignty.”
- The Court rejected the view that citizenship is determinative for § 2241 jurisdiction.
- The Court read Eisentrager as not controlling the construction of the federal habeas statute in this setting, given differences in posture and the statutory basis of the petitions.
- Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, stressing the United States’ long-standing, exclusive practical control over Guantánamo and the lack of an alternative forum.
- Justice Scalia dissented (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas), arguing Eisentrager and historical practice barred habeas for aliens held outside U.S. sovereign territory and warning of interference with wartime decisionmaking.
Legal Principles
- 28 U.S.C. § 2241 authorizes federal courts to entertain habeas petitions by persons “in custody in violation of the … laws … of the United States,” and its reach turns on the court’s jurisdiction over the custodian, not the detainee’s citizenship.
- Statutory habeas jurisdiction may extend to territories under the United States’ complete jurisdiction and control, even if another nation retains formal sovereignty.
- Johnson v. Eisentrager does not categorically bar statutory habeas jurisdiction for foreign nationals held at Guantánamo; its reasoning depended on distinct facts (including convictions by military commission) and did not limit § 2241 as construed in this context.
- For Guantánamo detainees, the relevant jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the United States’ exclusive control over the detention site and the availability of federal courts to test the legality of executive detention.
Conclusion
The Court held that federal district courts have statutory habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to hear challenges by foreign nationals detained at Guantánamo Bay because the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control there, notwithstanding Cuba’s retained sovereignty.