Latif v. Obama
400 U.S. App. D.C. 231
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Latif is a Yemeni detainee at Guantanamo whose detention is challenged via habeas corpus petition.
- The Government’s key evidence is a redacted interrogation Report summarizing Latif’s statements allegedly showing Taliban/al-Qaida involvement.
- The district court granted Latif’s petition, citing concerns about the Report’s reliability and Latif’s alternative explanations.
- The circuit majority held that a rebuttable presumption of regularity applies to official government records, including intelligence reports, and remanded for credibility assessment in light of total evidence.
- Latif’s credibility and the Report’s reliability are to be evaluated collectively on remand, considering new evidence and Latif’s declarations.
- The concurrence endorses remand and endorses a holistic, evidence-wide weighing approach consistent with Al-Adahi and Boumediene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumption of regularity for government records | Latif attacks regularity presumption | Government evidence entitled to presumption of regularity | Presumption of regularity applies to official records in Guantanamo habeas cases |
| Credibility assessment of Latif | District court did not adequately judge Latif’s credibility | Record supports credibility of Latif’s alternative story | District court must assess Latif’s credibility on remand; cannot rely on plausibility alone |
| Holistic review of evidence | District court dissected evidence in isolation | Holistic evaluation is unnecessary if presumption stands | Remand to evaluate the evidence collectively is required |
| Standard of review | Clear error review governs credibility determinations | Appellate review should defer to district court findings | Affirm remand with full evidentiary consideration under applicable standard of review |
| Remand versus merits resolution | Remand is unnecessary as Report’s unreliability is determinative | Remand may be necessary to resolve credibility and aggregate evidence | Remand approved for further factfinding on credibility and aggregate evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (U.S. 2004) (recognizes a rebuttable Government evidence presumption in enemy-combatant determinations)
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (extends habeas rights and stresses meaningful review; marks Boumediene considerations for evaluating evidence)
- Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (advocates holistic evidence review and credibility assessment in detainee cases)
- Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discusses reliability and the presumption framework for Government evidence in detainee cases)
- Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (recognizes issues of reliability of translations/interrogation summaries and admissibility of hearsay)