542 U.S. 466 (2004)
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on American targets, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against nations, organizations, or persons involved in the attacks or harboring those responsible.1 Acting pursuant to that authorization, U.S. Armed Forces entered Afghanistan to conduct a military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban regime.2
The petitioners are two Australian citizens and twelve Kuwaiti citizens.
They were captured abroad during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban.3 Since early 2002, the U.S. military has held them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba along with approximately 640 other non-Americans captured abroad.4
The United States occupies the 45-square-mile naval base pursuant to a 1903 Lease Agreement with Cuba executed after the Spanish-American War.5 A 1934 treaty provides that the lease remains in effect so long as the United States does not abandon the station.6 Under the 1903 agreement, the United States recognizes Cuba's ultimate sovereignty over the leased areas while Cuba consents that the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over those areas during the period of occupation.7
In 2002, relatives acting as next friends filed actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the petitioners challenging the legality of their detention.8 The two Australians each filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from custody, access to counsel, freedom from interrogations, and other relief.9 The twelve Kuwaiti detainees filed a complaint invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1350, among other provisions, and asserting causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Alien Tort Statute, and the general federal habeas corpus statute.10 They sought to be informed of charges against them, to meet with families and counsel, and to have access to courts or an impartial tribunal.11 All petitioners alleged that none had ever been a combatant against the United States or engaged in terrorist acts, none had been charged with wrongdoing, permitted to consult counsel, or provided access to any tribunal.12
The District Court construed all three actions as petitions for writs of habeas corpus and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager.13 The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because habeas corpus is unavailable to aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States and that no other federal statute provided jurisdiction.14 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2003.15
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2241 confers jurisdiction on federal district courts to entertain habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign nationals detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?16
Congress has granted federal district courts the authority to entertain habeas applications under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.17 The statute authorizes applications by any person claiming to be held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.18 The statute applies to aliens detained within territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control even if it lacks ultimate sovereignty.19
Yes. The petitioners are two Australian citizens and twelve Kuwaiti citizens captured abroad during hostilities and held since early 2002 at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.20 The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control under the 1903 Lease Agreement and 1934 Treaty with Cuba.21 The petitioners allege they are being held in violation of the laws of the United States.22
They have never been combatants against the United States or engaged in terrorist acts.23 No party questions the District Court's jurisdiction over their custodians.24 The statute's text refers to persons rather than citizens.25 The United States' plenary control over the base is sufficient to trigger application of the habeas statute because the statute addresses jurisdiction rather than sovereignty.26
United States courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy concurs in the judgment that federal courts have jurisdiction.28 The United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control over Guantanamo Bay.29 The petitioners have been held for an extended period without access to counsel or the opportunity to contest the factual basis for their detention.30
These circumstances require that the courts have jurisdiction to hear their claims.31 He emphasizes separately that the decision addresses only the jurisdictional question.32 It does not call into question the validity of the military's detention of enemy combatants or the procedures used to determine their status.33
Joined by Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J.
Justice Scalia dissents. The habeas statute presupposes a federal district court with territorial jurisdiction over the detainee.34 The writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of general appeal.35
It is a writ directed to the custodian of a prisoner.36 The writ has never been understood to extend to aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States.37 The Court's decision today vastly expands the reach of the habeas statute.38
It extends the writ to aliens detained in territory over which the United States does not exercise sovereignty.39 This is contrary to the historical understanding of the writ and to precedents such as Eisentrager.40 The decision will have serious consequences for the conduct of the war on terror.41
Whether Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, precludes the exercise of such jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by aliens captured abroad during hostilities and held at the base?42
In Johnson v. Eisentrager the Court held that enemy aliens captured outside the United States, tried and convicted by a military commission outside the United States, and imprisoned outside the United States had no right to habeas relief.43 That holding does not control when the petitioners are not nationals of countries at war with the United States, deny having engaged in hostilities, have never been afforded access to any tribunal, and have been held for more than two years in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control.44
No. The petitioners differ from the Eisentrager detainees because they are not enemy aliens.45
They deny engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States.46
They have never been charged with or convicted of any wrongdoing.47
They have been imprisoned for more than two years in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control.48
Eisentrager's six critical facts are therefore absent.49 Subsequent decisions such as Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky. have filled the statutory gap that occasioned Eisentrager's resort to constitutional fundamentals.50
Johnson v. Eisentrager does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over the petitioners' habeas petitions.51
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Kennedy concurs in the judgment by applying the Eisentrager framework.52 He finds two critical distinctions from Eisentrager.53 Guantanamo Bay is in every practical respect a United States territory far removed from any hostilities.54
The detainees are being held indefinitely without benefit of any legal proceeding to determine their status.55 These circumstances present altogether different considerations from those in Eisentrager.56 Indefinite detention without trial or other proceeding allows friends and foes alike to remain in detention and suggests a weaker case of military necessity.57
Joined by Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J.
Justice Scalia dissents. Eisentrager directly controls this case.58 The petitioners were captured in the course of ongoing hostilities.59
They are being held as enemy combatants.60 The military has determined that they pose a threat to the United States.61 The fact that they have not been charged or tried does not give them greater rights than the Eisentrager petitioners.62
The distinctions drawn by the Court are unpersuasive.63
Whether petitioners' non-habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1350 are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts?64
Nothing in Eisentrager or any other case categorically excludes aliens detained in military custody outside the United States from the privilege of litigation in United States courts.65 28 U.S.C. § 1350 explicitly confers the privilege of suing for an actionable tort committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States on aliens alone.66
Yes. The Court of Appeals held that the non-habeas claims must be dismissed because they rest on alleged violations of the same category of laws listed in the habeas corpus statute.67 Because Eisentrager erects no bar to the exercise of federal-court jurisdiction over the petitioners' habeas claims, it likewise erects no bar to claims that merely implicate the same category of laws.68 The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens.69
The fact that petitioners are being held in military custody is immaterial to the question of jurisdiction over their non-habeas statutory claims.70
Petitioners' non-habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1350 are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.71
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J.
Justice Scalia dissents from the extension of jurisdiction to non-habeas claims. The habeas statute presupposes a federal district court with territorial jurisdiction over the detainee, and the same territorial limits preclude jurisdiction under §§ 1331 and 1350 for aliens held outside sovereign territory.72
The writ has never been understood to extend to aliens detained outside the sovereign territory of the United States, and allowing these statutory claims would similarly contradict Eisentrager and the historical understanding of the writ.73 The decision will have serious consequences for the conduct of the war on terror by permitting enemy combatants to challenge their detention through multiple avenues in federal court.74