Gul v. Obama
397 U.S. App. D.C. 280
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Nazul Gul and Adel Hamad were detained at Guantanamo Bay for several years and filed habeas petitions in district court seeking release.
- Before merits hearings, the U.S. transferred them to foreign custody and did not rescind their enemy combatant designations.
- District court dismissed their petitions as moot for lack of ongoing U.S. custody and potential live controversy.
- Gul and Hamad argued mootness was avoidable due to collateral consequences and continued designation burdens, and sought relief under Boumediene.
- The district court later consolidated Guantanamo habeas cases and ultimately dismissed the petitions in a single order; the D.C. Circuit reviewed on appeal.
- The court held that Gul and Hamad identified no concrete collateral consequences sufficient to preserve a live controversy after their release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral consequences doctrine applies to former detainees | Gul argues ongoing designation and travel sanctions create continuing injury. | Obama contends collateral consequences do not apply to former detainees and mootness governs. | Collateral consequences not sufficient; mootness affirmed. |
| Whether the petitioners bear the burden of showing a live controversy | Gul asserts ongoing injuries require live controversy despite release. | Government contends living injuries do not meet Article III injury-in-fact thresholds when contingent on third-party actions. | Burden on petitioners to show ongoing jurisdictional injury; not met. |
| Whether the district court properly considered individualized circumstances | Gul contends a consolidated brief fails to address individual detainee facts. | Government maintains no additional individual issues are presented after Boumediene. | No reversible error; no non-moot individual issues proven. |
| Whether equitable considerations under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 affect mootness | Delays and potential unlawful detention would warrant merits if proceeding were allowed. | Equity cannot override Article III limitations and mootness governs. | Equity cannot defeat mootness; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1968) (collateral consequences form part of ongoing rights after release)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968) (presumption of justiciability for convictions with collateral consequences)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1998) (presumption of collateral consequences rejected; need concrete injury)
- Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1982) (standing and collateral consequences framework)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (detainee rights and habeas jurisdiction context)
- Kiyemba v. Obama, 605 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (extradomestic sovereign decisions affect detainee status and entry)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact and traceability principles in standing)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (core standing requirements and redressability)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (comity and jurisdictional considerations in detentions and transfers)