Abdul Rahim Janko v. Robert M. Gates
408 U.S. App. D.C. 195
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Abdul Rahim Abdul Razak al Janko, a Syrian national, was captured in Afghanistan and held at Guantanamo from 2002 until his release in 2009; he alleges torture and other mistreatment during detention.
- Two Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) and two Administrative Review Boards (ARBs) concluded he was properly detained as an enemy combatant.
- Janko obtained a writ of habeas corpus in district court, which ordered diplomatic efforts and led to his release in October 2009.
- After release he sued the United States and individual officials alleging FTCA, Alien Tort Statute, Bivens, § 1985, and constitutional claims for injuries suffered during detention.
- District court dismissed his claims, concluding 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) (MCA §7(a)) stripped jurisdiction; Janko appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Janko's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2241(e)(2) bars Janko's non-habeas detention-related claims | §2241(e)(2) should not apply because a district court later granted habeas, showing the CSRT determinations were incorrect | "The United States" in §2241(e)(2) means the Executive; CSRT determinations qualify and trigger the bar | Section 2241(e)(2) applies and bars Janko's claims because CSRT is a "determination by the United States" |
| Meaning of "determined by the United States" | Should include judicial determinations (the district court’s habeas grant) so that an intervening judicial decision can negate earlier executive determinations | Refers to executive-branch determinations (the detaining authority); identical statutory phrasing implies same meaning | Refers to executive determinations (CSRTs are determinations by the United States) |
| Whether "properly" requires correctness of the executive determination | "Properly" modifies "determined," so only correct determinations (as validated by habeas) trigger the bar | "Properly" modifies "detained" (i.e., a determination that the detainee meets AUMF criteria); statute does not condition the bar on judicial correctness | "Properly detained" describes the type of detention found by the Executive; accuracy of the determination is not required for the jurisdictional bar |
| Constitutionality of applying §2241(e)(2) to Janko (who prevailed on habeas) | Applying the bar here denies a damages remedy for constitutional violations and improperly encroaches on Article III (invoking Klein) | Congress may define federal jurisdiction; §2241(e)(2) is a valid jurisdictional limitation | Application is constitutional; statute does not unconstitutionally prescribe results in pending cases or divest Article III beyond Congress’s power |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (plurality) (AUMF authorizes detention of enemy combatants)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights)
- Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (§2241(e)(2) bars damages claims based on CSRT determinations)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871) (statute cannot prescribe rules of decision to the judiciary)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied damages remedy for some constitutional violations)