Supreme Court of the United States
Munaf v. Geren
June 12, 2008553 U.S. 674
Summary
The Supreme Court held that the federal habeas statute reaches American citizens detained overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even when those forces act as part of a multinational coalition, so the district courts had jurisdiction over Omar's and Munaf's petitions. It nevertheless held that habeas affords no relief on these facts: the writ cannot be used to enjoin transfer of detainees to Iraqi custody or to obtain a form of release that would defeat Iraq's sovereign right to prosecute crimes committed on its soil, and allegations of likely torture are for the political branches. The Court further held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction based solely on difficult jurisdictional questions without assessing likelihood of success on the merits, and it terminated the litigation because the petitions state no claim for relief.
Holding
- Whether federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) over habeas petitions by American citizens held overseas by American forces operating as part of a multinational coalition.. Yes. The habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even when those forces are acting as part of a multinational coalition; actual custody by the United States suffices for jurisdiction.
- Whether the district court properly granted the preliminary injunction barring Omar's transfer to Iraqi custody.. No. It was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to grant a preliminary injunction on the view that the jurisdictional issues were tough, without even considering the merits of the underlying habeas petition.
- Whether the Court could reach the merits of the habeas petitions on review of the preliminary injunction and dismiss the litigation.. Yes. Review of a preliminary injunction extends to determining whether there is any insuperable objection, in point of jurisdiction or merits, to the maintenance of the bill, and where the injunction rests on a question of law and it is plain the plaintiff cannot prevail, the defendant is entitled to judgment and the litigation may be terminated.
- Whether petitioners' claims—a due-process right not to be transferred to Iraqi custody, a request for release that would avoid transfer, and allegations of likely torture—state grounds upon which habeas relief may be granted.. No. The detainees' claims do not state grounds upon which habeas relief may be granted; habeas does not require the United States to shelter persons from the criminal justice system of a sovereign with undoubted authority to prosecute them, the petitions should have been promptly dismissed, and no injunction should have been entered.
- Whether the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act prohibits transfer and supports habeas relief.. The Court declined to consider the FARR Act argument because neither petitioner asserted a FARR Act claim in his habeas petition and the Act was not raised in the certiorari filings, but it stated that the petitions raise no claim for relief under the FARR Act, expressing no opinion on whether petitioners may amend on remand.
Docket 06-1666
Cited authorities
- Geneva Convention
- 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241
- 112 Stat. 2681
- 112 Stat. 2681
- 112 Stat. 2681
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252