Al-Marri v. Spagone

Last updated
al-Marri v. Spagone
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided March 6, 2009
Full case nameAli Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, Petitioner v. Daniel Spagone, United States Navy Commander, Consolidated Naval Brig
Docket no. 08-368
Citations555 U.S. 1220 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 1545; 173 L. Ed. 2d 671; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1777; 77 U.S.L.W. 3502; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 701
Case history
PriorWrit of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
SubsequentDismissed as moot
Questions presented
Whether U.S. residents can be imprisoned indefinitely for suspected wrongdoing without being charged with a crime and tried before a jury.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito

al-Marri v. Spagone, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009), was a legal case in which the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely for suspected wrongdoing without being charged with a crime and tried before a jury. [1] [2] The case was dismissed as moot on March 6, 2009, by the application of the Acting Solicitor General to transfer petitioner from military custody to the custody of the Attorney General. [3]

Contents

The Fourth Circuit had ruled that a United States resident cannot be held on suspicion of terrorist activities, but must be charged in a domestic court or released.

Background

The federal government arrested Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri on December 12, 2001, and indicted him on charges two years later on apparently unrelated charges of credit card fraud and assorted crimes of dishonesty.

On June 23, 2003, President George W. Bush's administration determined al-Marri to be an enemy combatant and ordered him transferred to the custody of the U.S. Department of Defense. [4] The federal government asserts he is a sleeper agent for the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, sent to the United States to explore disruptions of the country's financial systems. This was said to justify his detention without trial in civilian courts. Since that time, he has been held at the naval brig in Charleston, South Carolina. He is the only known enemy combatant to be held in military custody on U.S. soil (others are being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba).

Fourth Circuit decision

Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote the plurality opinion, which held that, as a legal resident of the United States who was originally detained in the United States, al-Marri could not be held in military custody as an enemy combatant. The court also held that the Military Commissions Act does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from alleged enemy combatants arrested and detained within the borders of the United States. The court ordered the government to either charge al-Marri with a crime, initiate deportation proceedings, or release him.

Dissenting from the opinion, Judge Henry E. Hudson indicated that he believed Bush possessed the authority to detain alleged sleeper agents such as al-Marri, "the type of stealth warrior used by Al Qaeda". [5]

The decision of Judge Motz was subsequently set aside and the case was reheard en banc on August 22, 2007, by the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a plurality opinion issued on July 15, 2008, the court held that the president did have authority to hold Al-Marri in military custody, but that Al-Marri was entitled to a greater, but undefined, degree of due process in his habeas corpus petition than had been accorded by the court below. The Supreme Court granted certiorari .

Shortly following his becoming president, President Barack Obama ordered Al-Marri transferred to civilian authorities, and the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot on March 6, 2009. Al-Marri was subsequently prosecuted in civilian court and pleaded guilty. He had been imprisoned for eight years without charges.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful combatant</span> Person who engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war

An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross points out that the terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant/belligerent" are not defined in any international agreements. While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to prisoner of war status. There are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José Padilla (criminal)</span> American terrorist incarcerated in a US federal prison

José Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen who was convicted in a federal court of aiding terrorists.

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention. The Court's 6–3 judgment on June 28, 2004, reversed a D.C. Circuit decision which had held that the judiciary has no jurisdiction to hear any petitions from foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case, in which José Padilla, an American citizen, sought habeas corpus relief against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as a result of his detention by the military as an "unlawful combatant."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yaser Esam Hamdi</span> Suspected Taliban member who got captured

Yaser Esam Hamdi is a former American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. The United States government claims that he was fighting with the Taliban against U.S. and Afghan Northern Alliance forces. He was declared an "illegal enemy combatant" by the Bush administration and detained for almost three years without charge. On October 9, 2004, on the condition that he renounce his U.S. citizenship and commit to travel prohibitions and other conditions, the government released him and deported him to Saudi Arabia, where he had been raised.

Enemy combatant is a person who, either lawfully or unlawfully, engages in hostilities for the other side in an armed conflict. Usually enemy combatants are members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war. In the case of a civil war or an insurrection "state" may be replaced by the more general term "party to the conflict".

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a case of the United States Supreme Court during World War II that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of eight German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Combatant Status Review Tribunal</span> Tribunals of US detainees at Guantanamo Bay

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) were a set of tribunals for confirming whether detainees held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp had been correctly designated as "enemy combatants". The CSRTs were established July 7, 2004 by order of U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz after U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush and were coordinated through the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a citizen of Qatar who was sentenced to serve a 15-year sentence in a United States federal prison, with credit for the nearly eight years he was held in detention without charges. He pleaded guilty to one count in a plea bargain after his case was transferred in 2009 to the federal court system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Odah</span>

Fouzi Khalid Abdullah Al Odah is a Kuwaiti citizen formerly held in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba. He had been detained without charge in Guantanamo Bay since 2002. He was a plaintiff in the ongoing case, Al Odah v. United States, which challenged his detention, along with that of fellow detainees. The case was widely acknowledged to be one of the most significant to be heard by the Supreme Court in the current term. The US Department of Defense reports that he was born in 1977, in Kuwait City, Kuwait.

Abu Bakker Qassim, et al. v. George W. Bush, et al. (05-5477), is a case in which two Muslim Uyghurs challenged their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military Commissions Act of 2006</span> Former United States law

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes".

Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi is a citizen of Libya who was held from June 2002 until March 2010 in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba because the United States classified him as an enemy combatant. His internment number was 654.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands 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."

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

Al Odah v. United States is a court case filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsels challenging the legality of the continued detention as enemy combatants of Guantanamo detainees. It was consolidated with Boumediene v. Bush (2008), which is the lead name of the decision.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. In 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court granted certiorari to review dismissal of petitioner's application for a habeas corpus review. The petitioner claimed that his conviction in a state court had violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. However, the petitioner was released from incarceration before his case could be heard.

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), extends to U.S. citizens held overseas by American forces subject to an American chain of command, even if acting as part of a multinational coalition. But, it found that habeas corpus provided the petitioners with no relief, holding that "Habeas corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them."

References

  1. 08-368
  2. Kravetz, Andy (2008-12-05). "U.S. Supreme Court to hear al-Marri's case". Peoria Journal Star.
  3. Certiorari. Summary disposition Supreme Court
  4. Enemy Combatant Designation by President Bush.
  5. Complete decision on Findlaw.com, Hudson's Dissent, at pg. 86.