Al Wirghi v. Obama
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91835
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Adil Bin Muhammad Al Wirghi has been detained at Guantanamo Bay as an enemy belligerent for over eleven years. Two administrations (Bush and Obama) conducted periodic reviews and ultimately cleared him for transfer.
- In 2008 an Administrative Review Board cleared Al Wirghi for transfer; the Guantanamo Review Task Force (Obama administration) again cleared him in 2009.
- Transfer has not occurred due to prolonged, ongoing diplomatic negotiations and political considerations involving potential receiving countries.
- Al Wirghi filed a habeas petition in 2005 and later joined a 2009 joint motion with the government to stay habeas proceedings; he has not sought to reopen habeas relief challenging the lawfulness of detention under the AUMF.
- He moved for a court order of release, arguing (1) his continued detention is arbitrary and indefinite in violation of due process because he was cleared for transfer, and (2) detention is no longer authorized by the AUMF because the government concedes he poses no threat.
- The District Court denied the motion, relying on its prior decision in Ahjam v. Obama and concluding Al Wirghi lacks standing to obtain release based on executive transfer discretion and that clearance for transfer does not mean the government concedes he poses no threat.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued detention after Task Force clearance is unconstitutionally indefinite | Al Wirghi: Detention is arbitrary and indefinite despite clearance for transfer; due process violated | Government: Detention under the AUMF may continue for the duration of relevant hostilities; clearance for transfer is not a conclusive concession of no threat | Denied — AUMF-authorized detention can last for the duration of hostilities; courts will not impose a novel time-based release rule |
| Whether clearance for transfer constitutes a concession that detention is no longer authorized under the AUMF | Al Wirghi: Clearance shows government no longer needs to detain him, so AUMF no longer authorizes detention | Government: Clearance decisions represent transfer suitability and risk mitigation in receiving country, not a determination that detainee is not an enemy combatant or poses no threat | Denied — Clearance does not equal concession; government made no such admission |
| Standing to obtain release based on interference with transfer process | Al Wirghi: Challenges detention conditions and indefinite delay in transfer as justiciable injury | Government: Lawfully detained enemy belligerents lack a judicially cognizable interest in executive foreign-affairs decisions about transfers | Denied — Follows Ahjam: detainee lacks standing to challenge executive transfer decisions |
| Whether statutory or constitutional limits require release after prolonged detention absent executive/ judicial finding | Al Wirghi: Prolonged delay and lack of transfer create due process violation requiring release | Government: No statute imposes a time limit; political branches conduct periodic reviews and transfers; courts should not create sliding-scale standards based on detention length | Denied — Court refuses to create new time-based detention standards absent statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (habeas corpus guarantees meaningful opportunity to challenge enemy combatant detention)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (detention of enemy combatants may last for the duration of active hostilities)
- Ali v. Obama, 736 F.3d 542 (D.C. Cir.) (detention under the AUMF may last for the duration of hostilities and courts should not craft novel time-based standards)