Facts
- José Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested at Chicago O’Hare Airport in May 2002 under a federal material witness warrant issued in the Southern District of New York.
- While litigation over that warrant was pending, the President designated Padilla an “enemy combatant” and directed the Secretary of Defense to detain him in military custody.
- Padilla was transferred to a Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina, under the custody of the brig commander, Commander Melanie Marr.
- Padilla’s counsel filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of New York, naming the President, the Secretary of Defense, and Commander Marr as respondents.
- The government argued the petition was improperly filed because the only proper respondent was the immediate custodian (Commander Marr) and the New York court lacked jurisdiction over her.
- The district court held the Secretary of Defense was a proper respondent and found jurisdiction; the Second Circuit agreed on jurisdiction but ruled against the government on the merits of detention authority.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the filing forum/parties and the President’s detention authority.
Issues
- In a habeas challenge to present physical custody, who is the proper respondent: the immediate custodian (the brig commander) or a remote supervisory official (the Secretary of Defense)?
- Must such a habeas petition be filed in the federal district of confinement, or may it be filed in a different district asserting jurisdiction over a supervisory official?
- If jurisdiction is proper, does the President have authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant under the AUMF and Article II, consistent with the Non-Detention Act?
Decision
- The Supreme Court (5–4, Chief Justice Rehnquist) vacated the Second Circuit and remanded with instructions to dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice.
- The Court held that, in a “core” habeas challenge to present physical detention, the proper respondent is the immediate physical custodian, not the Secretary of Defense.
- The Court held the petition must be filed in the district of confinement, where the immediate custodian is subject to service of process; thus, the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction.
- Because the case was resolved on jurisdictional grounds, the Court did not reach the merits of the President’s asserted authority to detain Padilla militarily.
Legal Principles
- In a “core” habeas petition challenging present physical custody, the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden or commander with immediate physical custody of the detainee.
- For such petitions, habeas jurisdiction generally lies only in the district of confinement, because the writ is directed to the custodian who must be able to produce the detainee before the court.
- A petitioner may not bypass the immediate-custodian rule by naming a remote supervisory official based on “legal control” over detention.
- State long-arm theories cannot be used to create habeas jurisdiction over a remote federal official when the immediate custodian is outside the district.
- Prior cases permitting continued adjudication after a post-filing transfer do not authorize filing in an improper district at the outset.
Conclusion
The Court required Padilla to pursue habeas relief by naming his immediate custodian and filing in the district where he was confined, leaving unresolved whether the President may militarily detain a U.S. citizen arrested domestically as an enemy combatant.