Abdah v. Obama
394 U.S. App. D.C. 100
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Detainees at Guantanamo challenged government transfers beyond the writ’s reach.
- The court denied a petition for initial en banc hearing on the detainees’ challenge.
- Griffith dissented, arguing Boumediene requires notice of transfers and an opportunity to challenge.
- Kiyemba II held detainees had no right to notice of transfers beyond the writ; the dissent argues this misapplies Munaf.
- Boumediene extended habeas to GTMO and implied a right to challenge transfers; historical and common-law background supports blocking unlawful transfers.
- The opinion discusses Munaf’s merits vs. procedural protections, noting notice is essential for challenging transfers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detainees have a right to notice of transfers beyond the writ’s reach | Detainees entitled to notice under Boumediene | Kiyemba II rejected notice, deferring to executive judgments | Majority denied en banc; no right established in this ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (extended habeas to Guantanamo detainees; recognized right to challenge transfers)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) (notice and challenge rights distinct from merits; deference to executive on foreign policy matters)
- Kiyemba v. Obama (Kiyemba II), 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (denied detainees' notice rights; relied on executive judgment)
- Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) (recognition of habeas rights; judicial review constraints)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (due process in wartime detention; judicial review)
- Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (habeas protections to ensure rights not defeated by removal)