IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION
Memorandum in opposition to re (106 in 1:05-cv-01504-RMC, 141 in 1:05-cv-01704-RMU, 36 in 1:08-cv-01101-JDB, 98 in 1:05-cv-01505-RMC, 123 in 1:05-cv-02479-HHK, 628 in 1:05-cv-02386-RBW, 71 in 1:05-cv-01971-RMC, 81 in 1:06-cv-01767-RMU, 128 in 1:05-cv-01220-RMU, 316 in 1:04-cv-01254-HHK, 24 in 1:06-cv-01688-RMC, 123 in 1:05-cv-01353-RMC, 5 in 1:08-cv-01628-PLF, 89 in 1:05-cv-01607-RMU, 69 in 1:05-cv-02385-RMU, 104 in 1:05-cv-01555-JR, 26 in 1:08-cv-01227-ESH, 135 in 1:05-cv-00270-JR, 48 in 1:05-cv-01623-RWR, 83 in 1:05-cv-02371-RCL, 68 in 1:06-cv-01684-GK, 87 in 1:05-cv-02379-JR, 86 in 1:05-cv-00526-RMU, 186 in 1:05-cv-01509-RMU, 64 in 1:05-cv-00998-RMU, 80 in 1:05-cv-00748-RMC, 87 in 1:06-cv-01690-RBW, 39 in 1:08-cv-00987-JDB, 47 in 1:08-cv-01310-RMU, 80 in 1:05-cv-02199-HHK, 109 in 1:05-cv-00492-JR, 66 in 1:05-cv-01457-GK, 97 in 1:05-cv-01506-RMC, 148 in 1:05-cv-01048-RMU, 82 in 1:05-cv-01347-GK, 62 in 1:05-cv-01639-RBW, 102 in 1:05-cv-01602-RMU, 86 in 1:05-cv-00392-ESH, 48 in 1:05-cv-02477-RMU, 151 in 1:05-cv-00520-RMU, 57 in 1:06-cv-01758-RMC, 143 in 1:05-cv-01429-RMU, 723 in 1:08-mc-00442-TFH, 70 in 1:05-cv-02088-RWR, 91 in 1:05-cv-02380-CKK, 41 in 1:08-cv-01153-HHK, 64 in 1:05-cv-01458-ESH-AK, 83 in 1:05-cv-01497-RCL, 68 in 1:05-cv-00883-RBW, 22 in 1:08-cv-01221-CKK, 78 in 1:05-cv-00994-JDB, 96 in 1:05-cv-02185-JR, 86 in 1:05-cv-02186-ESH, 37 in 1:06-cv-01759-JDB, 37 in 1:08-cv-01185-HHK, 177 in 1:05-cv-00280-GK) MOTION to Dismiss "Improper" Respondents filed by MARTIN MUBANGA, KATHLEEN MUBANGA, JAMIL EL-BANNA, SABAH SUNNRQROUT, BISHER AL-RAWI, JAHIDA SAYYADI, MAHMOUD AHMED, ABDULMALIK ABDULWAHHAB AL-RAHABI, AHMED ABDULWAHHAB, MAKHTAR YAHIA NAJI AL-WRAFIE, FOADE YAHIA NAJI AL-WRAFIE, AREF ABD IL RHEEM, AREF ABD AL RAHIM, YASEIN KHASEM MOHAMMAD ESMAIL, JAMEL KHASEM MOHAMMAD, ADNAN FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, MAHMOAD ABDAH, MOHAMED FARHAN ABDUL LATIF, JAMAL MAR'I, NABIL MOHAMED MAR'I, OTHMAN ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ARAF ABDULRAHEEM MOHAMMAD, ADIL EL HAJ OBAID, NAZEM SAEED EL HAJ OBAID, MOHAMED MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, BASHIR MOHAMED HASSAN ODAINI, SADEQ MOHAMMED SAID, MAHMOAD ABDAH AHMED, ABD ALSALAM MOHAMMED SAEED, FAROUK ALI AHMED SAIF, SHEAB AL MOHAMEDI, SALMAN YAHALDI HSAN MOHAMMED SAUD, YAHIVA HSANE MOHAMMED SAUD AL-RBUAYE, ALL PETITIONERS, MAJID MAHMOUD AHMED, FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, OMAR DEGHAYES, SHERIF EL-MASHAD, WAFFA EL-ARABIE, ADEL FATTOUH ALY AHMED ALGAZZAR, EAHME SALEM ALASSANI, SALEM SAED ALASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AGIL AL-NADHI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AGIL AL-NADHY, ZAHER OMER BEN HAMDON, MOHAMMED OMER KHAMIS HAMDON, MOHAMMED AL-ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL-HAJ, MUHAMMAD AL-ADAHI, MIRIAM ALI ABDULLAH AL-HAJ, MOHAMED ALI ABDULLA, MUHAMMAD ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, SALIH ALI ABDULLAH BAWAZIR, FAHMI SALEM AL-ASSANI, SALEM SAID AL-ASSANI, SULEIMAN AWADH BIN AQIL AL-NAHDI, GHAZI AWADH BIN AQIL AL-NAHDI, ZAHIR OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, MUHAMMAD OMAR KHAMIS BIN HAMDOON, SALEH ALI ABDULLA BAWAZER, DJAMEL AMEZIANE, AHAMED ABDUL AZIZ, SABIHA AWAD HADRAMI, NASSER DAHER AL SHAMMARI, ABDUL RAHMAN SHALBY, SHAKER AAMER, ABDULLAH AALI AL OTIABI, MUHAMMED FAHAD AL QAHTANY, MUSA AL MADANY, SALEH ABDULLA AL-OSHAN, MOHAMMED SAAD MOHAMMED AL-OSHAN, ZABEN DHAHER AL SHAMMARI, MUHAMMED KHAN TUMANI, ABD AL NISR KHAN TUMANI, MOHSEN ABDRUB ABOASSY, MOHAMMED SAEED BIN SALMAN, SAMEER NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, ABDULLA AHDRUB ABOASSY, SAEED SALIM BISALMAN, NAJY HASAN MUKBEL, KARIN BOSTAN, ARKAN MOHAMMAD GHAFIL AL KARIM, KASIMBEKOV KOMOLIDDIN TOHIRJANOVICH, ABDULSALAM ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL-HELA, ABDULWAHAB ALI ABDULRAHMAN AL-HELA, ABU ABDUL RAUF ZALITA, OMAR DEGHAYES, FARHI SAEED BIN MOHAMMED, MOAZZAM BEGG, MOTAI SAIB, BISHER AL-RAWI, FATIMA NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, SAEED MOHAMMED SALEH HATIM, ALI MOHAMMED SALEH AL-SALAHI, MOHAMMED NASSER YAHIA ABDULLAH KHUSSROF, AHMED "DOE", OMAR DEGHAYES, JIHAD DHIAB, SHAKER AAMER, HAMMAD DOE, HUDHAIFA DOE, JALAAL DOE, KHALID DOE, SAABIR DOE, SAADIQ DOE, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUSABUR DOE, ABDUSAMAD DOE, ABDUNASIR DOE, ADIL BIN MUHAMMAD AL WIRGHI, MOAZZAM BEGG, TAWISS BINT HASAN AL WIRGHI, NABIL, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, SHAFIIQ, JAMAAL KIYEMBA, ABBAR SUFIAN AL HAWARY, SHAKER AAMER, BISHER AL-RAWI, IBRAHIM OSMAN IBRAHIM IDRIS, EDHAM MAMET, IBRAHIM MAMET, FOUZIA AHMMED, ABDUL RAHEEM GHULAM RABBANI, MALIKA, AHMMED GHULAM RABBANI, ABDUL ZAHIR, AMEEN MOHAMMAD ALBKRI, ALI SALEH ALBKRI, SADAR DOE, ARKEEN DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHAMMED AL-QAHTANI, MANEA AHMED FAHAD AL-QAHTANI, KHALED ABD ELGABAR MOHAMMED OTHMAN, ABD AL MALIK ABD AL WAHAB, ABDU AL QADER HUSSAIN AL-MUDAFARI, SALIEH HUSSAIN ALI AL-MUDAFARI, HAYAL AZIZ AHMED AL-MITHALI, ALI AZIZ AHMED AL-MITHALI, ABD AL HAKIM GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, SAEED GHALIB AHMAD ALHAG, AHMED AL DARBY, AHMAD MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, ALI MOHAMMAD AL DARBI, MOHAMMED MOHAMMED HASSEN, ADHAM MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA AL-BAIDANY, ABDEL AZIZ AL-SWIDI, AHMED MOHAMMED HASSIN AL RAMMAH, MOHAMMED AL PALESTINI, OMAR (LNU), SOFAINE MOHAMMED BERHOUMI, ABDUL AZIZ NAJI, ABIN ALHAMED ABID ALSALLAM ALKESAWI, UMAR ABDULLAH AL KUNDUZI, KHALED ABDALLAH AL-IDAN, ABDUL RAUF ASIBI, ABDUL RAZAK ALI, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH TAHA MATTAN, MAHER LNU, MAHER EL FALESTENY, SHARGOWI LNU, BISHER AL-RAWI, JABBAROV OYBECK JAMOLOVICH, FADL DAHIMI, ABDUL SALAM DEIFF, ABDURAHMAN LNU, AHMED OMAR, ALI LNU, EDRESS LNU, MOHAMMED AHMED SAEED HIDAR, SAIF ULLAH, YOYEJ, SAEED, OMAR DOE, SHARAF AL SANANI, OMAR DEGHAYES, FAHD ABU HAFSA, JAMAL KIYEMBA, ABDUL HAQ, SAMI MUHYIDEEN, OMAR RAMAH, ABD AL ZAHER, FAWZI KHALED ABDALLAH AL-AUDHA, ABDULLAH BO OMER HAMZA YOYEJ, ABU RAHAN, NAJEEB DOE, SAD AL GAHTANI, FAHD AL HARAAZI, JABIR AL QUATANY, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, MOHSEN, FAHD AL FAWZAN, ADEL LNU, RASHED AL QAMDI, BANDAR AL SHAIBANI, ALI SHER HAMIDULLAH, MARSHAL DOE, KHALD AL BARKATI, ABDULAL AL THANI, ABU AHMED AL JOFI, SLAIM HARBI, ABU RAD AL JOFI, MUHAMMED HARBI, ABDULAL DOE, SAD AL MATERI, BOUCETTA FIHI, SAYF BIN ABDALLAH, SEED FARHA, SALEH DOE, AHMED ADNAN AHJAM, MAGED DOE, ZEYAD AL GASSMY, ADEL HASSAN, HAMAD DOE, JAMIL AHMAD SAEED, HALA AHMAD SAEED AL-ADAHG, AMIR DOE, ABU AHMED, WALEED DOE, WALEED LNU, SAMIR DOE, ELHAM BATAIF, ZEIN AL-ABEDEEN, YAGOOB AL SOURY, ABDUL RHMAN, ADEL AL TUNISI, ZAKER CHAN, SADER DOE, ALI AL KAZMI, ADNAN AL BIHANI, ALI YAHYA MAHDI, ABDULLAH LNU, ABDURAZZAK LNU, KHADER DOE, BILAL LNU, MOSHEN DOE, ABDUL RAHMAN, ABDURRAZAKH LNU, FAHD DOE, JAMIL EL-BANNA, OSAMA DOE, MOHAMED HMADI, FAHMI DOE, ESAM DOE, USAMA HASAN ABU KABIR, ABDUR RAZAKAH, AHMAD DOE, AHMED AL-DELEBANY, ALI KADAMI, AYMAN, FAWAZ, HOUMAD WARZLY, MOHAMED RAJAB, OTHMAN ALI MUHAMMED OMAR, MOHAMMED KAMEEN, SABRY MOHAMMED, SALEH, WAQAS MOHAMMED ALI AWAD, ZAKARIA, KHALID MOHAMMED, MUHAMMAD NUR UTHMAN MUHAMMAD, MAHDI SALIH, SAKI BACHA, SHAMSULLAH, ABOU YASSIR JEZAIRI, ABDAL RAUF ZALITINI, ABDAUL RAZAK ALI-HAJ, ADNAN, AHAMED, SALAH DEEN IBN SHAIKH, SALIH, SALEH LIBI, ABD AL RAHMAN ABDULLAH AL HALMANDY, MUHAMMED SAAD IQBAL MADNI, SAID MADANY, ABDULLAH JAFFA, ABU HADIFA, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, SANJAWEZ RAWEEL KAMEEL WEEJ, ABUL AZIZ AL MATRAFI, MAJED BARYAN, MOHAMED FAHAD SAAD AL ZU'BI, MOUSSA, ABDULRAHMAN, SAUD AL JOUHANY, SULTAN AL SHAREEF, ABDU TAWAB, ABDUL AZIZ, ABU RAWDAH, ABDUL AL HAMMAN, ABDUL LATIF, ABDULLA HAJI, ABDULLA, ADEL, INSHANULLAH, BITAL ADEL HALAMI, HISHAM, RAFIOVE BIN BASHIR, RIAD NARGERI, RIDAH, SAIF, MASOUD, ABDULLAH, ABDULLAH ALI SALEH, AMAR BILOUSHI, KHALID DESHIRE, IBRAHIM NAYIF ADBALLAH IBRAHIM, MOHAMMED CHINGUITY, ABDO ALI AL HAJ, ABU BAKER SHAMMRANY, GHANIM-ABDULRAHMAN AL-HARBI, RAVIL MINGAZOV, ZAINULABIDIN MEROZHEV, ELHAM BATTAYAV, ALI ABDULLAH ALI, MOHAMMED AHMED TAHER, QARI SAAD IQBAL, MOHAMMAD SHARIEF, MOHAMED AL-ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, MAJID KHAN, RABIA KHAN, FAIZ AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, HADDAD AHMED YAHIA SULIMAN, MOHAMED MUQBEL AHMED ALSABRI, MOHAMED AL-ZARNOUQI, MASHOUR ABDULLAH MUQBEL ALSABRI, ELISHER, SABIR, MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, SAMI AL HAJJ, SHAWALI KHAN, GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION, MOHAMMED SULAYMON BARRE, MOHAMMED ABD AL AL QADIR, SHAKHRUKH HAMIDUVA, ADINA HAMIDOVA, FNU HAFIZULLAH, ABDUL GHAFFAR, ADEL NOORI, MUSTAFA AHMED HAMLILY, MUSTAFA AIT IDIR. (Kadidal, Shayana)
IN RE: GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA x : IN RE: : : GUANTANAMO BAY : DETAINEE LITIGATION : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x
Misc. No. 08-442 (TFH) Civil Action Nos. 04-CV-1144, 04-CV-1254, 05-CV-270, 05-CV-280, 05-CV-392, 05-CV-492, 05-CV-520, 05-CV-526, 05-CV-748, 05-CV-883, 05-CV-994, 05-CV-998, 05-CV-1048, 05-CV-1220, 05-CV-1347, 05-CV-1353, 05-CV-1429, 05-CV-1457, 05-CV-1458, 05-CV-1497, 05-CV-1504, 05-CV-1505, 05-CV-1506, 05-CV-1509, 05-CV-1555, 05-CV-1602, 05-CV-1607, 05-CV-1623, 05-CV-1639, 05-CV-1704, 05-CV-1971, 05-CV-2088, 05-CV-2185, 05-CV-2186, 05-CV-2199, 05-CV-2370, 05-CV-2371, 05-CV-2379, 05-CV-2380, 05-CV-2385, 05-CV-2386, 05-CV-2477, 05-CV-2479, 06-CV-1688, 06-CV-1758, 06-CV-1759, 06-CV-1767, 06-CV-1684, 06-CV-1690, 08-CV-987, 08-CV-1101, 08-CV-1153, 08-CV-1185, 08-CV-1221, 08-CV-1227, 08-CV-1310, 08-CV-1628
PETITIONERS' OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS "IMPROPER" RESPONDENTS Six years into this litigation, the government has moved (with one business day's advance notice1) to remove the President and base commanders from the captions of these cases. The
Prior to filing the instant motion, Respondent's counsel sent an email at 2:42pm on Friday, October 10, 2008, captioned "Meet & Confer wrt 08-0442 Motion to Dismiss Improper Respondents," and requesting a response by noon on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 (following the Columbus Day holiday). Most petitioners' counsel responded by email. Rather than reply to Petitioners' counsel and "narrow the areas of disagreement" as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m), Respondents simply filed their motion to dismiss. Respondents' counsel did not "discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel, either in person or by telephone," as required by Local Civil Rule 7(m) (emphasis added), and this Court's Minute Order of October 2, 2008, which directed counsel to that Rule (Inter alia, such a discussion might have identified the issue
motion is both premature and untimely. It is premature because these cases still contain nonhabeas claims against the named defendants. It is untimely because the government has for years neglected to seek such relief in the habeas litigation--during which time the Supreme Court has twice ruled in favor of the detainees without commenting on the fact that the President was the first named respondent in those cases. See Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2008). Because the caselaw regarding "proper" respondents in extraterritorial habeas cases permits naming both the immediate custodians and supervisory officials like the President, and because non-habeas claims remain pending against all named official defendants, the government's motion should be denied in its entirety.
The Government May Not Remove Officials from the Caption without First Securing Dismissal of All Claims Directed against Them The government's motion cannot be granted while non-habeas claims remain pending
against individuals other than the Secretary of Defense. The initial pleadings in a number of the above-captioned cases were denominated as both a "petition for habeas corpus" and a "complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief" (see, e.g., Petition and Complaint, Dkt. 1, Ameziane v. Bush, No. 05-CV-392 (ESH) (D.D.C. filed Feb. 24, 2005)).2 All or nearly all of the cases include claims for equitable relief under the Alien Tort Statute and international humanitarian law, and
noted in Part I of this opposition, below.) Respondents' failure to follow the local rules is reason alone for this Court to strike Respondents' Motion. For example, the following cases involve petitions jointly denominated as habeas petition and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, and contain Alien Tort Statute, international humanitarian law, and direct constitutional claims: 05-280, 05-392, 05-520, 05-526, 05-748, 05998, 05-1458, 05-1704, 05-2370, 05-2371, 08-1224, and 08-1227.
directly under the Constitution.3 The government's motion does not address or even mention these claims. Its failure to directly address these claims in its opening brief is fatal to its motion to remove the officials named as parties in these cases.
The Base Commanders Are Proper Habeas Respondents In the domestic detention context, the proper respondent for a habeas petition is the
petitioner's "immediate custodian." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (citing Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2242; id. § 2243 (directing the writ to "the person having custody of the person detained"). Where the petitioner is detained outside the territorial jurisdiction of any district court, however, the petition may name as respondents "supervisory officials" who control custody. Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, 350 F. Supp. 2d 28, 44 (D.D.C. 2004); see also Padilla, 542 U.S. at 438 n.9 (citing United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955) and Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). The government asserts that the exception to the "immediate custodian" rule applies in this case, and concedes that the Secretary of Defense is therefore a proper respondent. Gov't Motion at 2, 5. However, the government urges the court to dismiss all other custodial officials as "superfluous" and "unnecessary." Gov't Motion at 5. The government offers neither precedent
For example, the petitions in the following cases were captioned only as habeas petitions, but they explicitly invoked jurisdiction under general federal question jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Alien Tort Statute, inter alia, and also directly under several constitutional provisions: 04-1144, 04-1254, 05-994, 05-1048, 05-1347, 05-1353, 05-1429, 05-1457, 05-1504, 05-1505, 05-1506, 05-1555, 05-1623, 05-1971, 05-2088, 05-2185, 05-2186, 05-2379, 05-2380, 05-2385, 05-2386, 05-2479, 06-1684, 06-1690, 06-1758, 06-1767, 08-987, 08-1101, 08-1185, 08-1221, and 08-1310. The petition in 05-270 is denominated a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Request for Declaratory Relief" and includes claims under international law, several treaties of the Untied States and the due process clause. The petition in 08-1153 is entitled "Petition for Habeas Corpus and Other Relief" and makes similar claims.
nor argument in support of such an order.4 Nothing in the caselaw mandates that habeas petitioners held extraterritorially name the fewest possible government officials as respondents.5 Indeed, this Court has stated that where the exception to the "immediate custodian" rule applies, "the petitioner may name as respondents any of his custodians," Abu Ali, 350 F. Supp. 2d at 44 (emphasis added), including both the immediate custodians and the Secretary of Defense.6
The President Is Properly Named If the government is correct that an extraterritorial detention exception to the "immediate
custodian" rule applies to the habeas claims of petitioners, then nothing should prohibit naming the President as an appropriate respondent in habeas under that same exception. The government makes reference in passing to the idea that the President "could not be considered the petitioners' custodian"--despite the fact that he "may have authorized custody of the prisoners."7 Gov't
The government's citation to "Congress' judgment in the DTA context" is a non sequitur.
Although the government has claimed elsewhere that removing the non-Defense Secretary respondents will "elevate [sic] ... administrative difficulties inherent in adjudicating multiple enemy combatant...cases pending concurrently in this Court" and "allow commanders at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay to focus," the government offers no facts or reasoning to support these conclusory assertions. See Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Improper Respondents, Batarfi v. Bush, 05-CV-409 (EGS), Dkt. 123 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 4, 2008), at 12; cf. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring) ("any Presidential time spent dealing with, or action taken in response to, that kind of case [challenging official conduct] is part of a President's official duties. Hence court review in such circumstances could not interfere with, or distract from, official duties."). See Gherebi v. Bush, 338 F. Supp. 2d 91, 95 (D.D.C. 2004) (holding that, under Padilla exception, Guantánamo detainees may name Defense Secretary as habeas respondent). The Government's claim that the President is not "the legal custodian" and thus is an improper respondent, relying on Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2004), see Gov't Motion at 4, is baseless. In Al-Marri, the Seventh Circuit stated that only persons "exercising" custody, rather than those "authorizing" custody, are proper habeas respondents, and for this reason excluded the President and the Secretary of Defense as proper respondents. 360 F.3d at 708-09. Not only does this position contradict prior and subsequent Supreme Court precedent, 4
Motion at 4. Again, the government's own contentions undercut its conclusion. The President is very much a current custodian. Indeed, the government claims that its authority to detain Petitioners derives from the President's Article II powers and the power delegated to the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force" under the AUMF, 115 Stat. 224 (2001).8 Those claims to Presidential power over the detainees resolve the issue of whether the President is an appropriate respondent in habeas. Contrary to the government's claims, naming the President as Respondent in habeas is no novelty to the courts. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2008); Belbacha v. Bush, 520 F.3d 452 (2008); Qassim v. Bush, 466 F.3d 1073 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Adem v. Bush, 425 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2006). The Supreme Court has not once remarked on the President's appearance in these cases, and the government offers no persuasive reason why this Court should do so now. In seeking to dismiss the President as a Respondent, the government relies chiefly on an 1867 case for the proposition that courts have "no jurisdiction ... to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties." Gov't Mot. at 3 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 49899 (1867)). Far from supporting the government's argument, that case--in which the state of Mississippi attempted to enjoin the entire post-war Reconstruction program-- merely states the familiar doctrine that courts do not adjudicate political questions. See, e.g.,
see Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 426, 438 n.9 (2004); Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953), as well as the government's own theory in the instant motion, see Gov't Motion at 4-5, but even under the Seventh Circuit's logic, the President, as a supervisory official of Petitioners' custodians with the power to reverse at any time the determination that a petitioner is legally detained (unlike Judge Easterbrook's models for "authorizing" officials--namely, sentencing judges and members of the legislature who pass criminal statutes, see Al-Marri, 360 F.3d at 708), clearly "exercises" custody over them. In any event, Al-Marri is not binding on this Court.
See, e.g., Brief for the Respondents at 66-67, Boumediene v. Bush, Nos. 06-1195/06-1996 (U.S. Oct. 9, 2007).
National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 614 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (holding that Mississippi v. Johnson did not bar a court from issuing a writ of mandamus to the President to effectuate a pay raise owed to certain federal employees).9 The government concedes that Mississsipi v. Johnson does not foreclose a court from enjoining the President to perform a "ministerial" duty (that is, one not requiring an exercise of discretion), a category which includes most remedial orders one could contemplate in these cases (e.g. an order of release, an order vacating an enemy combatant designation, or an order blocking an unlawful transfer).10 Modern authorities make clear that the President "is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 703 (1997); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (compelling President Nixon to comply with a subpoena commanding him to produce certain tape recordings of his conversations with his aides). The Supreme Court also observed that "[s]itting Presidents have responded to court orders to provide testimony and other information with sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive Branches can scarcely be thought a novelty." Jones, 520 U.S. at 704. Moreover, retaining the President as respondent allows the Court to preserve jurisdiction over these proceedings should the government decide to transfer the Petitioners from the custody of the Secretary of Defense to another executive department, as has already been done in other
The other case cited by the government for this proposition, Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), merely questioned the Judiciary's authority to issue an injunction against the President, without deciding the question. See id. at 80203. See Gov't Motion at 3 (citing Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. at 802). Mississippi v. Johnson defines a ministerial duty as a duty "to which nothing is left to discretion. ... a simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law." 71 U.S at 498 (cited by Franklin, 505 U.S. at 802-03); cf. National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d at 602-03. The definition fits the parenthetical examples in the text rather precisely; each would remove the President's discretion to act, rather than forcing him to exercise it affirmatively in a certain fashion. 6
cases. At least one terrorism suspect was transferred from Justice Department to Defense Department custody when the government found it convenient to do so. See Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213, 217 (4th Cir. July 15, 2008) (en banc) (noting government's dismissal of indictment during criminal proceeding against defendant and order signed by President transferring defendant to military custody). And at least one terrorism suspect was transferred from the Defense Department to the Justice Department, also at the government's convenience, and to the great consternation of one federal appellate court. See Padilla v. Hanft, 432 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 2005) (denying government's motion to transfer military detainee to civilian authorities for trial, after Court had previously given government authority to hold the detainee in military custody), rev'd, 546 U.S. 1084 (2006). A number of current Guantánamo detainees were formerly held in CIA custody (including Petitioner Majid Khan, 06-CV-1690, in the instant case), and there is no guarantee that they will not be once again subject to enforced disappearance by the government. Rather, the government takes the position that it has unfettered discretion to transfer detainees from the control of the Department of Defense. Given the expressed desire of senior U.S. officials (and both presidential candidates) to close the Guantánamo detention facilities,11 such a transfer between agencies and custodians is not unlikely.12 For these reasons, the Court should deny the government's motion to dismiss the President as a respondent.
See Steven Lee Myers, "Bush Decides to Keep Guantánamo Open," N.Y. Times, Oct. 20, 2008, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/washington/21gitmo.html.
Compare the controlling concurrence of Justice Kennedy in Padilla, 542 U.S. at 453, expressly holding open the possibility of "some further exception [to the immediate custodian rule] to protect the integrity of the writ or the rights of the person detained." 7
IV. The Government's Protestations Are Untimely The government had years to make a motion to dismiss the non-habeas claims in most of the above-captioned cases. Likewise it had years to challenge the designation of the President and base commanders as respondents. It did not do so until the instant motion was filed. The government has nowhere explained why it found it necessary to file this motion at this time, why this motion represents a sound use of its attorneys' supposedly limited time, or why this Court should devote its own assuredly limited resources to resolving this issue at this advanced date. Indeed, under the circumstances, it would be perfectly appropriate for the Court to deem the government's objections waived or abandoned. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring) ("Because the immediate custodian and territorial-jurisdiction rules are like personal-jurisdiction or venue rules, objections to the filing of petitions based on those grounds can be waived by the government.").
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the government's motion in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, /s/ sk Shayana Kadidal (D.C. Bar No. 454248) J. Wells Dixon Gitanjali S. Gutierrez Pardiss Kebriaei Emi MacLean CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS13 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, New York 10012 Tel: (212) 614-6438
The Center for Constitutional Rights also represents petitioners in three additional cases (all included in the government's motion) in which our Status Reports of July 18, 2008 indicated that we had agreed to dismissal of those actions without prejudice. Those cases are: Al-Delebany v. Bush, 05-2477 (RMU), Iqbal v. Bush, 06-1688 (RMC), and Elisher v. Bush, 06-1759 (JDB). 8
Fax: (212) 614-6499 firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for Plaintiffs and Petitioners in 05-392, 05526, 05-1220, 05-1639, 05-1684, 05-1971, 05-2088, 05-2385, 05-2386, 06-1690, 08-1153 Michael A. Cooper Suhana S. Han Jessica M. Klein 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Tel. (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588 Counsel for Petitioners Adil bin Muhammad al Wirghi and Tawiss bint Hasan al Wirghi, 05-1497 Joseph E. O'Neil LAVIN, O'NEIL, RICCI, CEDRONE & DISIPIO 190 North Independence Mall West Suite 500 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 (215) 351-7901 Cori Crider REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 London EC4P 4WS England Counsel for Petitioner Aboassy, 05-748 Susan Baker Manning BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036-3406 Telephone: (202) 778-6150 Facsimile: (202) 778-6155 Counsel for Petitioners in Kiyemba 05-1509 and Mamet 05-1602 Jerry Cohen BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP 125 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 ph: 617-345-3000 fax: 617-345-3299 email@example.com
Stewart Eisenberg WEINBERG & GARBER,PC 71 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 Tel: (413) 582-6886 Fax: (413) 582-688 firstname.lastname@example.org, Counsel for Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed, 05-1347, and Mohammed Abd Al Al Qadir, 08-1185 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Richard L. Cys (D.C. Bar No. 87536) Lisa B. Zycherman (D.C. Bar No. 495277) 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006-3402 Telephone: (202) 973-4217 Facsimile: (202) 973-4499 Email: email@example.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.org James P. Walsh (D.C. Bar No. 930115) Suite 800 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-6533 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 Email: email@example.com Counsel for Petitioner Madni, 05-2385 Agnieszka Fryszman (DC 459208) Avi Garbow (DC 445399) Matthew K. Handley (DC 489946) COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Ave, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 John Holland Anna Cayton-Holland LAW OFFICES OF JOHN HOLLAND 1437 High St. Denver, CO 80218
Clive A. Stafford Smith Zachary Katznelson REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 London EC4P 4WS England Counsel for Petitioners in Ahamed Abdul Aziz, 05492 and Abdul Raheem Ghulam Rabbani, 05-1607 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP Richard G. Murphy, Jr. (D.C. Bar No. 472769) Brian C. Spahn (D.C. Bar No. 976474) 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-2415 Telephone: (202) 383-0635 Facsimile: (202) 637-3593 John A. Chandler (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) Elizabeth V. Tanis (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) Kristin B. Wilhelm (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) 999 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996 Telephone: (404) 853-8000 Facsimile: (404) 853-8806 Counsel for Petitioners in Al-Adahi, 05-280, and for Petitioner Sharkawi Abda Ali Al-Haag (ISN 1457) in Mohammon v. Bush, 05-2386 Ellen Lubell, Esq. Doris Tennant, Esq. TENNANT LUBELL, LLC 288 Walnut St., Suite 500 Newton, MA 02460 Tel: (617) 969-9610 Attorneys for Abdul Aziz Naji, 05-2386 Eric A. Tirschwell (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) Michael J. Sternhell (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) Darren LaVerne (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) Seema Saifee (Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g)) KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 715-9100 Facsimile: (212) 715-8000 Counsel for Petitioners Abdul Razakah and Ahmad Tourson in 05-2370 and Adel Noori and Abdul Ghaffar in 08-1310
Peter B. Ellis Mass. BBO #153500 Andrew Loewenstein Mass. BBO #648074 Usha-Kiran K. Ghia Mass. BBO #666711 FOLEY HOAG, LLP 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2600 617.832.1000 Attorneys for Petitioner Mohammed Ahmed Saeed Hidar, a.k.a. Mohammed Ahmed Said Haidel, ISN # 498 in Mohammon v. Bush, 05-2386 Lowell E. Sachnoff Matthew J. O'Hara Adam R. Chiss Andrew J. Moss, Each Pursuant to LCvR 83.2(g) and Brian C. Lewis (D.C. Bar No. 476851) REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 207-1000 firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for Petitioners Walid Ibrahim Mustafa Abu Hijazi, ISN 049, Umar Hamzayevich Abdulayev, ISN 257, and Maasoum Abdah Mouhammad, ISN 330, in Mohammon v. Bush, 05-2386 Douglas K. Spaulding Gary S. Thompson Allison M. Lefrak Rick W. Roberts Nathan R. Fennessy REED SMITH LLP 1301 K Street, NW Suite 1100 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 414-9220 Bernard J. Casey, D.C. Bar No. 112219 Casey ADR Services 3018 NE 32nd Place Portland, OR 97212 Phone: (415) 515-0855 Counsel for Petitioners in 05-2479
Michael Caruso ACTING FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER Paul M. Rashkind Chief of Appeals Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender 150 W. Flagler St. Suite 1500 Miami, Florida 33130-1555 Tel. (305) 536-6900 x 205 fax. (305) 530-7120 email: Paul_Rashkind@fd.org Timothy Cone Assistant Federal Public Defender 150 W. Flagler St. Suite 1500 Miami, Florida 33130-1555 Tel. (305) 536-6900 x 227 Temp. (202) 208-7528 x 121 fax (202) 208-7515 email: Tim_Cone@fd.org Counsel for Petitioner Bostan in 05-883 Carol Elder Bruce BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 2000 K Street NW Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20006-1872 T: 202.828.5809 F: 202.857.4827 email@example.com Randolph Stuart Sergent VENABLE LLP 750 East Pratt Street Baltimore MD 21202 Phone: 410-528-2881 Fax: 410-244-7742 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Ahmed Ghappour Cori Crider Zachary Katznelson Clive Stafford-Smith REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 22 Tudor Street London, UK EC4Y 0AY
United Kingdom Tel: 011 44 207 353 Fax: 011 44 207 353 4641 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for Petitioners el-Mashad and Algazzar, 05-270 Jonathan I. Blackman Christopher P. Moore Tanisha L. Massie Melissa J. Durkee CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, New York 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 Facsimile: (212) 225-3999 Counsel for Petitioners in Hamlily v. Bush, 08-1628 Jennifer R. Cowan DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6000 Facsimile: (212) 909-6836 John B. Missing DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 1100E Washington, D.C. 20004-1169 Telephone: (202) 383-8000 Facsimile: (202) 383-8118 Counsel for Petitioners Idris, Al-Mudafari and AlMithali in 05-1555, 05-2185, and 05-2186 David L. Engelhardt (DC429886) John C. Snodgrass (DC473864) DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-5403 Tel. 202-420-2200 Fax 202-420-2201 Counsel for Petitioner in Alhag, 05- 2199
S. William Livingston D.C. Bar. No. 59055 Alan A. Pemberton D.C. Bar. No. 367108 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 (202) 662-6000 (phone) (202) 778-6000 (fax) email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org David H. Remes D.C. Bar. No. 370372 APPEAL FOR JUSTICE 1106 Noyes Drive Silver Spring, MD 20910 (202) 669-6508 (phone) Marc D. Falkoff D.C. Bar No. 491149 NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW DeKalb, IL 60614 (347) 564-5043 (phone) (815) 753-9301 (fax) Counsel for Petitioners in 04-1254, 05-1048, and 05-1429 A. Stephens Clay James F. Bogan, III Allen C. Garrett, Jr. John R. Gibson Daniel G. Schulof KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Telephone: (404) 815-6500 Facsimile: (404) 815-6555 email@example.com Counsel for Petitioners Ali Sher Hamidullah (ISN 455), and Sharaf Al Sanani (ISN 170), in Mohammon v. Bush, 05-2386, and Shakhrukh Hamiduva (ISN 22), in 08-1221
Kristine A. Huskey (D.C. Bar #462979) Scott Sullivan National Security & Human Rights Clinic University of Texas School of Law 727 East Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 Tel: 512-232-3657 Fax: 512-232-0800 Counsel for Petitioners in Dokhan v. Bush, 08-987 Paul C. Curnin Karen E. Abravanel SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 455-2000 Fax: (212) 455-2502 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for Petitioners in 05-2371 George Brent Mickum IV [Bar No. 396142] SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH 1350 I Street NW Washington, District of Columbia 20005 Telephone: (202) 898-5800 Facsimile: (202) 682-1639 Counsel for Petitioners in 04-1144 Martin Flumenbaum (DC Bar No. 393210) Julia Tarver Mason PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Tel: (212) 373-3029 Fax: (212) 373-0029 email@example.com Counsel for Petitioners in 05-520 Brian Mendelsohn W. Matthew Dodge FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC. Suite 1700, The Equitable Building 100 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone: (404) 688-7530
Facsimile: (404) 688-0768 Counsel for Petitioner in Al Karim v. Bush, 05-998 and Gul v. Bush, 08-1227 Billy H. Nolas (DC 399275; PA 83177) Assistant Federal Defender Maureen Rowley (PA 33020) Chief Federal Defender Matthew Lawry (PA 87221) Shawn Nolan (PA 56535) Mark Wilson (PA 26887) Assistant Federal Defenders FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDER OFFICE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 601 Walnut Street, Suite 545 West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 928-0520 Fax: (215) 928-1100 Counsel for Petitioner Tohirjanovich, 05-994 Robert A. Gensburg P. O. Box 248 St. Johnsbury, VT 05819 phone (802) 748-5338 fax (802) 748-1673 email firstname.lastname@example.org Counsel for Petitioner Abdulzaher in 05-1623 Brian J. Neff SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 753-5000 Fax: (212) 753-5044 Email: email@example.com Counsel for Petitioners in Al-Zarnouqi v. Bush, 061767 Leonard C. Goodman 53 E. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1220 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Tel: (312) 986-1984 firstname.lastname@example.org Attorney for Petitioner Shawali Khan, ISN 899, in 08-1101
Glenn K. Jones Rene Kathawala Catherine Y. Lui Diana Rutowski ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94106 Counsel for Petitioners in Awad v. Bush, 05-2379 and Al-Baidany v. Bush, 05-2380 Noah H. Rashkind 2411 SW 35th Place, #206 Gainesville, Florida 32608 Tel: (352) 215-5990 Email: email@example.com Counsel for Petitioner Jamil Ahmad Saeed, also known as Jamil Ahmed Said Nassir, ISN # 728 in Mohammon v. Bush, 05-2386 Meghan N. Winokur firstname.lastname@example.org HOLLAND & HART LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Tel. (303) 295-8390 Fax: (303) 975-5456 Counsel for Petitioners Motai Saib (ISN 288) in 051353, Nabil Hadjarab (ISN 238) in 05-1504, Abbar Sufian Al Hawary (ISN 1016) in 05-1505 and Sufyian Barhoumi, a/k/a Shafiiq (ISN 694) in 051506 Sozi P. Tulante HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN One Logan Square, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933 Tel: (215) 496-7073 Fax: (215) 568-0300 email@example.com Counsel for Petitioner Mattan in Mohammon v. Bush, 05-2386
Cori Crider REPRIEVE P.O. Box 52742 London EC4P 4WS England Counsel for Petitioner Dhiab, 05-1457 Kevin Boris RUPRECHT, HART & WEEKS, LLP 306 Main Street Millburn, NJ 07023 tele.973.379.2400 fax.973.379.2446 Counsel for petitioner Doe, 05-1458 David Sleigh SLEIGH & WILLIAMS, P.C. 364 Railroad Street St. Johnsbury, Vt 05819 802-748-5176 (voice) 802-748-6618 (fax) firstname.lastname@example.org (email) Counsel for petitioner, 06-1758