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.