Kanai v. McHugh, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4094

Kanai, a final-year West Point cadet, sought discharge as a conscientious objector; Army Board denied his application.
After denial, Kanai was released from active duty; he filed a 28 U.S.C. §2241 habeas petition in the District of Maryland.
District court granted the writ; Army appealed arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and/or a lack of basis in fact for the Board’s denial.
4th Circuit held the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and that the Army waived objections under §2241(a) by not raising them earlier.
On the merits, court found a basis in fact for the Army Board’s denial despite some improper ground references, and remanded to reinstate the Army Board’s decision (reversing the district court’s writ grant).
Procedural history also notes Board procedures, the five-member Board after 2008, and related due-process considerations, all within the basis-in-fact framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2241(a) challenges are waivable.	Kanai	Army	Waived; district court jurisdiction can be reviewed on merits but under Padilla no subject-matter restriction remained.
Whether there was a basis in fact for denial of conscientious objector status.	Kanai	Army	Yes, there was a basis in fact supporting denial.
Whether any due-process or procedural irregularities require remand.	Kanai	Army**	No remand required; Board’s basis-in-fact justification stands; procedural issues not reversible error.

Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (jurisdictional analysis limited; petition filed in proper district over custodian matters; venue/personal jurisdiction considerations)
Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2004) (holds §2241(a) as venue, waivable; not subject-matter jurisdiction)
Ruhrgas, Inc. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (waiver-based objections; timely assertion requirements)
Mathena v. United States, 577 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2009) (§2241(a) in-personam jurisdiction perspective; waiver by failure to raise)
Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (1946) (basis-in-fact review standard for conscientious objector cases)
Peckat v. Lutz, 451 F.2d 366 (4th Cir. 1971) (importance of articulated basis in fact; avoid naked conclusions)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (discusses jurisdiction over custodian)
Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341 (1972) (custodian presence considerations in custody habeas)
Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U.S. 487 (1971) (habeas reach for non-custodial petitioners)
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (scope of habeas in mixed detention contexts)