Amanatullah v. Obama
904 F. Supp. 2d 45
D.D.C.2012Background
- Amanatullah, a Pakistani citizen, was detained at Bagram and filed a habeas petition in this court seeking relief and due process.
- The government moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing Al Maqaleh II’s holding that the Suspension Clause does not cover non-U.S. detainees at Bagram.
- Amanatullah proffers new evidence post-Al Maqaleh II (e.g., DRB procedures, Afghan trials, and statements suggesting indefinite U.S. control) to revisit Boumediene factors.
- The court reviews Boumediene v. Bush three-factor test and considers whether new evidence mandates departing from the Circuit’s analysis.
- Judge Bates’ and Wahid/Gwin line of cases are discussed as controlling authorities guiding whether new evidence alters jurisdiction.
- The court ultimately grants the government’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion and dismisses Amanatullah’s petition, denying jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Boumediene apply to Amanatullah at Bagram in light of Al Maqaleh II? | Amanatullah’s new evidence could alter the Boumediene analysis. | Al Maqaleh II governs; no new evidence changes the analysis. | No departure from Al Maqaleh II; jurisdiction dismissed. |
| Is the detainee’s citizenship/status material to jurisdiction under Boumediene? | DRB release status supports relief and status-based review. | Release status is irrelevant to detention lawfulness. | Irrelevant to Boumediene analysis; no jurisdictional change. |
| Do the DRB procedures’ adequacy and improvements affect jurisdiction? | DRB improvements undermine the government’s position and favor petitioners. | DRB is only marginally better; does not alter Boumediene factors. | Weighs slightly in petitioners’ favor but does not depart from Al Maqaleh II. |
| Does the nature of the site (Bagram) require extending the writ to Amanatullah? | Indefinite detention at Bagram mirrors Guantanamo, warranting review. | Bagram remains a theater of war with different circumstances. | No departure from governing analysis; site factor favors the government. |
| Should Amanatullah be allowed jurisdictional discovery to pursue evasion-of-review theory? | Discovery could uncover evidence of evasion of judicial review. | Discovery would not alter jurisdiction; untenable theory. | Jurisdictional discovery denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (establishes Boumediene three-factor test for habeas rights abroad)
- Al Maqaleh v. Gates, II, 605 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ( Suspension Clause does not extend to non-U.S. detainees at Bagram)
- Al Maqaleh v. Gates, I, 604 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.D.C. 2009) (initial district-court analysis pre-Second Circuit decision)
- Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) (scope of habeas review after Rasul for Guantanamo detainees)
- Almerfedi v. Obama, 654 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (clarifies irrelevance of release status to detention legality)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (burden of establishing jurisdiction in Rule 12(b)(1) actions)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (standard for burden of proof on jurisdictional challenges)