Ammar Al-Baluchi v. Pete Hegseth, 140 F.4th 517

Ammar al-Baluchi, a Pakistani national, has been detained at Guantánamo Bay since 2006 and faces military commission proceedings for allegedly supporting the September 11 attacks.
Al-Baluchi filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention; that case has been stayed pending the completion of his military commission trial, which has not yet occurred.
He moved in district court to compel the government to convene a "Mixed Medical Commission" under Army Regulation 190-8 (AR 190-8) and the Third Geneva Convention to determine his eligibility for medical repatriation, alleging serious ongoing medical issues from previous torture and detention.
The district court denied his motion, holding that detainees in noninternational armed conflicts are not entitled to such a commission under the Geneva Convention or AR 190-8.
Al-Baluchi appealed immediately, arguing the denial caused irreparable harm that warranted immediate appellate review.
The government argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was nonfinal and no exception to the final-order rule applied, as the government retained discretion over repatriation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate Jurisdiction Over Nonfinal Order	The order causes irreparable harm and is immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1) or the collateral-order doctrine	The order is nonfinal and does not meet exceptions for interlocutory review; government retains discretion over repatriation	The appeal is not immediately appealable; no appellate jurisdiction
Government's Obligation After Mixed Medical Commission	A favorable commission finding should compel immediate repatriation	Even with a favorable finding, the government has discretion to delay repatriation until after judicial proceedings	The government’s discretion means repatriation is not compelled during prosecution
Applicability of Article 115 (Third Geneva Convention)	Commission decision requires prompt action barring judicial proceedings	Article 115 gives detaining power discretion to delay repatriation for ongoing proceedings	Article 115 confirmed to give U.S. discretion to delay
Request for Injunctive Relief	District court's order is appealable as it denied injunctive relief	No specific injunctive request was made in district court	The order did not deny an injunction in “terms”; not appealable

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (courts must verify jurisdiction before reaching merits)
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (1945) (defining "final decisions" under § 1291)
Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (interlocutory appealability of orders affecting injunctive relief)
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral-order doctrine for appeals)
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (Geneva Convention commentaries as interpretive tools)