Hadjarab v. Bush
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98712
D.D.C.2013Background
- Guantanamo detainees Aamer, Hadjarab, Belbacha are hunger-striking and have been cleared for release.
- Some petitioners are approved for enteral feeding via nasogastric tube to preserve life; others not.
- JMG designates hunger strikers by intent, weight loss, and missed meals, then monitors health and counsels detainees.
- Ramadan fasting concerns arise because enteral feeding could interfere with daylight fasting hours; government pledges accommodation of fasting where possible.
- Petitioners seek a preliminary injunction to halt force-feeding and Reglan administration; government argues court lacks jurisdiction and that feeding serves legitimate penological interests.
- Court concludes it lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) to review treatment or conditions of confinement at Guantanamo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241(e)(2) bars relief here | Aamer, et al. contend § 2241(e)(2) does not bar injunction on medical treatment. | Obama and agencies argue § 2241(e)(2) precludes any action concerning treatment or confinement conditions. | Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241(e)(2). |
| Whether Boumediene's Suspension Clause concerns apply | Petitioners contend lack of habeas review for conditions is akin to suspension invalidated in Boumediene. | Courts have upheld § 2241(e)(2) as not affecting habeas and Boumediene does not apply to treatment claims. | Boumediene does not render § 2241(e)(2) unconstitutional for treatment claims. |
| If jurisdiction existed, would injunction be granted | Petitioners argue right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and Ramadan observances require stopping force-feeding. | Government shows compelling penological interests in preventing suicide and preserving life. | Even assuming jurisdiction, no likelihood of success; public interest favors continued feeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) ( Suspension Clause concerns; detainee review mechanisms not adequate substitute for habeas)
- Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld, 669 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (§ 2241(e)(2) precludes treatment/conditions of confinement claims; habeas not implicated)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 150 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 1998) (enteral feeding context recognized as a security/discipline matter; not a constitutional violation)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirmative government duty to prevent suicide and provide life-saving care)