Syllabus
						NOTE:  Where it 
						is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as 
						is being done in connection with this case, at the time 
						the opinion is issued.
						The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the 
						Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions 
						for the convenience of the reader.
						See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber 
						Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
						SUPREME 
						COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
						RASUL et al. v. BUSH, 
						PRESIDENT OF THE 
						UNITED STATES, et al.
						CERTIORARI TO THE 
						UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
						COLUMIBA CIRCUIT
						
No. 03—334. 
						Argued April 20, 2004–Decided June 28, 2004
						
						
						Pursuant to Congress’ 
						joint resolution authorizing the use of necessary and 
						appropriate force against nations, organizations, or 
						persons that planned, authorized, committed, or aided in 
						the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks, the 
						President sent Armed Forces into Afghanistan to wage a 
						military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban 
						regime that had supported it. Petitioners, 2 Australians 
						and 12 Kuwaitis captured abroad during the hostilities, 
						are being held in military custody at the Guantanamo 
						Bay, Cuba, Naval Base, which the United States occupies 
						under a lease and treaty recognizing Cuba’s ultimate 
						sovereignty, but giving this country complete 
						jurisdiction and control for so long as it does not 
						abandon the leased areas. Petitioners filed suits under 
						federal law challenging the legality of their detention, 
						alleging that they had never been combatants against the 
						United States or engaged in terrorist acts, and that 
						they have never been charged with wrongdoing, permitted 
						to consult counsel, or provided access to courts or 
						other tribunals. The District Court construed the suits 
						as habeas petitions and dismissed them for want of 
						jurisdiction, holding that, under Johnson v. 
						Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, aliens detained outside 
						United States sovereign territory may not invoke habeas 
						relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 
						Held: United 
						States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges 
						to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals 
						captured abroad in connection with hostilities and 
						incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Pp. 4—17.
						    (a) The District 
						Court has jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ habeas 
						challenges under 28 U.S. C. §2241, which authorizes 
						district courts, “within their respective 
						jurisdictions,” to entertain habeas applications by 
						persons claiming to be held “in custody in violation of 
						the … laws … of the United States,” §§2241(a), (c)(3). 
						Such jurisdiction extends to aliens held in a territory 
						over which the United States exercises plenary and 
						exclusive jurisdiction, but not “ultimate sovereignty.” 
						Pp. 4—16.
						        (1) The Court 
						rejects respondents’ primary submission that these cases 
						are controlled by Eisentrager’s holding that a 
						District Court lacked authority to grant habeas relief 
						to German citizens captured by U.S. forces in China, 
						tried and convicted of war crimes by an American 
						military commission headquartered in Nanking, and 
						incarcerated in occupied Germany. Reversing a Court of 
						Appeals judgment finding jurisdiction, the 
						Eisentrager Court found six critical facts: The 
						German prisoners were (a) enemy aliens who (b) had never 
						been or resided in the United States, (c) were captured 
						outside U.S. territory and there held in military 
						custody, (d) were there tried and convicted by the 
						military (e) for offenses committed there, and (f) were 
						imprisoned there at all times. 339 U.S., at 777. 
						Petitioners here differ from the Eisentrager 
						detainees in important respects: They are not nationals 
						of countries at war with the United States, and they 
						deny that they have engaged in or plotted acts of 
						aggression against this country; they have never been 
						afforded access to any tribunal, much less charged with 
						and convicted of wrongdoing; and for more than two years 
						they have been imprisoned in territory over which the 
						United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and 
						control. The Eisentrager Court also made clear 
						that all six of the noted critical facts were relevant 
						only to the question of the prisoners’ constitutional 
						entitlement to habeas review. Ibid. The Court’s 
						only statement on their statutory entitlement was 
						a passing reference to its absence. Id., at 768. 
						This cursory treatment is explained by the Court’s 
						then-recent decision in Ahrens v. Clark, 
						335 U.S. 188, in which it held that the District Court 
						for the District of Columbia lacked jurisdiction to 
						entertain the habeas claims of aliens detained at Ellis 
						Island because the habeas statute’s phrase “within their 
						respective jurisdictions” required the petitioners’ 
						presence within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, 
						id., at 192. However, the Court later held, in 
						Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 
						410 U.S. 484, 494—495, that such presence is not “an 
						invariable prerequisite” to the exercise of §2241 
						jurisdiction because habeas acts upon the person holding 
						the prisoner, not the prisoner himself, so that the 
						court acts “within [its] respective jurisdiction” if the 
						custodian can be reached by service of process. Because
						Braden overruled the statutory predicate to 
						Eisentrager’s holding, Eisentrager does not 
						preclude the exercise of §2241 jurisdiction over 
						petitioners’ claims. Pp. 6—11.
						        (2) Also 
						rejected is respondents’ contention that §2241 is 
						limited by the principle that legislation is presumed 
						not to have extraterritorial application unless Congress 
						clearly manifests such an intent, EEOC v. 
						Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248. That 
						presumption has no application to the operation of the 
						habeas statute with respect to persons detained within 
						“the [United States’] territorial jurisdiction.” 
						Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 
						285. By the express terms of its agreements with Cuba, 
						the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and 
						control over the Guantanamo Base, and may continue to do 
						so permanently if it chooses. Respondents concede that 
						the habeas statute would create federal-court 
						jurisdiction over the claims of an American citizen held 
						at the base. Considering that §2241 draws no distinction 
						between Americans and aliens held in federal custody, 
						there is little reason to think that Congress intended 
						the statute’s geographical coverage to vary depending on 
						the detainee’s citizenship. Aliens held at the base, 
						like American citizens, are entitled to invoke the 
						federal courts’ §2241 authority. Pp. 12—15.
						        (3) Petiti 
						oners contend that they are being held in federal 
						custody in violation of United States laws, and the 
						District Court’s jurisdiction over petitioners’ 
						custodians is unquestioned, cf. Braden, 410 U.S., 
						at 495. Section 2241 requires nothing more and therefore 
						confers jurisdiction on the District Court. Pp. 15—16.
						    (b) The District 
						Court also has jurisdiction to hear the Al Odah 
						petitioners’ complaint invoking 28 U.S. C. §1331, the 
						federal question statute, and §1350, the Alien Tort 
						Statute. The Court of Appeals, again relying on 
						Eisentrager, held that the District Court correctly 
						dismissed these claims for want of jurisdiction because 
						the petitioners lacked the privilege of litigation in 
						U.S. courts. Nothing in Eisentrager or any other 
						of the Court’s cases categorically excludes aliens 
						detained in military custody outside the United States 
						from that privilege. United States courts have 
						traditionally been open to nonresident aliens. Cf. 
						Disconto Gesellschaft v. Umbreit, 208 U.S. 
						570, 578. And indeed, §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. The fact that 
						petitioners are being held in military custody is 
						immaterial. Pp. 16—17.
						    (c) Whether and 
						what further proceedings may become necessary after 
						respondents respond to the merits of petitioners’ claims 
						are not here addressed. P. 17.
						321 F.3d 1134, reversed 
						and remanded.
						    Stevens, J., 
						delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’Connor, 
						Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., 
						filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., 
						filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., 
						and Thomas, J., joined.