Hedges v. Obama, 724 F.3d 170

Background

Plaintiffs challenge Section 1021(b)(2) of the 2012 NDAA, arguing it violates First and Fifth Amendment rights and seek an injunction and declaration.
The district court granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement of § 1021(b)(2) against all persons.
The court relied on standing to challenge preenforcement detention risk for both U.S. citizens (Hedges, O’Brien) and noncitizens (Jonsdottir, Wargalla).
The government contends § 1021(b)(2) adds no new detention authority and codifies preexisting AUMF power; plaintiffs argue it expands detention authority domestically and for citizens.
The opinion reviews the AUMF history, including Hamdi, Padilla, al-Marri, Boumediene, and the March 2009 memo, to interpret § 1021’s text and intent.
The court ultimately vacates the injunction and remands, holding lack of Article III standing for both citizen and noncitizen plaintiffs under the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can Hedges and O’Brien establish standing to challenge § 1021?	Hedges and O’Brien contend § 1021 threatens detention of citizens.	Government argues § 1021(b)(2) says nothing about detaining U.S. citizens; no standing.	No standing; § 1021 does not affect citizen detention.
Do the noncitizen plaintiffs have standing to challenge § 1021(b)(2)?	Jonsdottir and Wargalla fear enforcement for their activities abroad.	§ 1021(b)(2) could apply to noncitizens abroad; standing may exist if threat is imminent.	Standing lacking; no credible, imminent threat shown; no redressable injury.
How does § 1021 interpret the AUMF and what does 1021(e) do?	Section 1021 expands detention authority to American citizens; ambiguous.	1021(b) clarifies preexisting authority; 1021(e) preserves existing citizen detention law.	Section 1021(b)(2) concerns noncitizens abroad; for citizens, 1021 is not operative.
Is there a real threat of enforcement justifying standing given the foreign-affairs context?	Fear of enforcement is real enough to confer standing under contemporaneous doctrine.	Detention authority is political/foreign affairs; standing requires more than speculative threat.	Insufficient threat of enforcement; cannot establish standing.

Key Cases Cited

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (detention authority under AUMF; limits duration; basic framework)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2004) (detention of a U.S. citizen on domestic soil; ND A limitations)
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (habeas rights for Guantánamo detainees; due process in detention)
Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (detention authority encompasses those who support enemy forces)
Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008) (debate on noncitizen detention authority; en banc discussion)
Gherebi v. Obama, 609 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2009) (district court considerations on detention standards)
Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discussion of “part of” vs “substantial support” standards)
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (S. Ct. 2013) (standing requiring imminent or certain threat; preenforcement standing nuances)
Vermont Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Gardner, 221 F.3d 376 (2d Cir. 2000) (credible threat/enforcement uncertainty supporting standing)
Pacific Capital Bank v. Connecticut, 542 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2008) (preenforcement standing; credible threat standard in state action context)
Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1988) (First Amendment pre-enforcement standing framework (overbreadth context in related discussion))
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (standing when fearing enforcement of a criminal statute)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2010) (credible threat/standing in First/Fifth Amendment contexts)
Al-Marri v. Spagone, 555 U.S. 1066 (U.S. 2008) (context for detentions post-al-Marri litigation (referenced in discussion))