Doe v. Mattis
288 F. Supp. 3d 195
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Petitioner, a U.S. citizen, is detained in Iraq by U.S. forces and is pursuing a habeas petition; ACLUF represents him.
- The Defense Department indicated it may transfer Petitioner to another country but could not provide a timeline and asserted authority to transfer when a receiving country is ready.
- December 23, 2017 order allowed ACLUF access and required the Defense Department to refrain from transferring Petitioner until ACLUF informed the court of Petitioner’s wishes.
- Defense Department submitted a classified declaration; the court reviewed a redacted public version but found it did not show legal authority for transfer.
- Petitioner asked the court to enjoin any transfer during litigation; the government argued national security and foreign relations concerns bar such relief.
- The court denied a blanket prohibition on transfer but ordered the Defense Department to give 72 hours’ notice to the court and Petitioner’s counsel before any transfer, allowing emergency motions to contest transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can restrict the Defense Department from transferring Petitioner during habeas proceedings | Petitioner: court may restrict transfers to preserve ability to pursue habeas | DoD: Munaf and Kiyemba bar courts from enjoining transfers because of national security/foreign relations | Court: Likely success for petitioner; Munaf/Kiyemba distinguishable—court may temporarily restrict transfer but not impose an absolute bar |
| Whether government presented "positive legal authority" for transfer | Petitioner: government has no positive legal authority (e.g., extradition request) | DoD: classified facts and foreign-relations interests justify transfer | Court: Classified declaration did not show positive legal authority for transfer |
| Whether irreparable harm would occur without relief | Petitioner: transfer would effectively moot habeas and cause irreparable harm | DoD: could assert national-security/foreign-relations harm | Court: Petitioner would be irreparably harmed if transferred without notice because he might be unable to continue habeas proceedings |
| Appropriate interim relief | Petitioner: prohibit transfer during litigation | DoD: objected to notice/order restricting transfer | Court: Grant in part—72 hours’ notice to court and counsel before any transfer; petitioner may file emergency motion to contest |
Key Cases Cited
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (court cannot require U.S. to shield fugitives from sovereign with authority to prosecute)
- Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir.) (limits on district court power to enjoin transfers of certain non-citizen detainees)
- Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir.) (executive must show positive legal authority for detention or transfer)
- Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5 (extradition or treaty/legislative authority required for surrender to foreign power)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir.) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunction factors)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir.) (likelihood of success as essential requirement for injunction)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. citizens have right to challenge factual basis for detention)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (habeas rights protect against arbitrary executive restraint)