572 U.S. 1079
SCOTUS2014Background
- Petitioner Abdul Al Qader Ahmed Hussain was detained and the District Court (and D.C. Circuit) found he was "part of al‑Qaeda or the Taliban" at capture and therefore detainable under the AUMF.
- The AUMF (2001) authorizes the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against persons or organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks, which prior decisions have construed to include detention of enemy combatants.
- In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a plurality held the AUMF authorizes detention of individuals who were part of or supporting hostile forces in Afghanistan and who engaged in armed conflict there; the opinion limited detention to the duration of the particular conflict.
- The Supreme Court has not resolved whether the AUMF permits detention of someone who was a member of al‑Qaeda or the Taliban but was not "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States" in Afghanistan prior to capture.
- The Court also has not decided whether the AUMF or the Constitution imposes a limit on the duration of such detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AUMF authorizes detention of someone who was a member of al‑Qaeda/Taliban but not engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan | Hussain: detention not authorized if not engaged in armed conflict in Afghanistan | Government: membership/support for al‑Qaeda/Taliban suffices for detention under AUMF | Court denied certiorari; did not decide the substantive question |
| Whether AUMF or Constitution limits duration of detention | Hussain: detention duration must be limited (e.g., to duration of relevant conflict) | Government: detention may continue as authorized by AUMF for national security reasons | Court denied certiorari; question left open |
| Validity of lower courts' holdings that Hussain could be detained as part of al‑Qaeda/Taliban | Hussain: factual/legal challenge to detention validity | Government: lower courts correctly found detainability based on membership | Denial of certiorari leaves lower‑court determinations intact but Supreme Court did not review them |
| Whether Supreme Court should grant review to address open legal questions on AUMF detention scope and duration | Hussain: seeks resolution of unsettled legal issues | Government: opposes further review or contends lower courts resolved case properly | Court declined to grant certiorari; Justice Breyer concurred in denial, noting unresolved issues but acknowledging petitioner did not ask the Court to resolve them |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (plurality recognized AUMF authority to detain certain enemy combatants)