Mammar Ameur v. Robert Gates
759 F.3d 317
4th Cir.2014Background
- Mammar Ameur, detained by US forces (Bagram, then Guantanamo) as an "enemy combatant," alleged physical and religious mistreatment and sought money damages after his 2008 release to Algeria.
- Ameur sued Robert Gates and other federal officials individually in 2011, asserting ATCA, RFRA, constitutional, and international-law claims for compensatory and punitive damages.
- The United States substituted itself for the individual defendants on the ATCA claims under the Westfall Act and moved to dismiss; the district court transferred venue to the Eastern District of Virginia and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2).
- § 2241(e)(2) bars "any other action" (non-habeas) against the United States or its agents relating to detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of aliens determined to be enemy combatants.
- Ameur argued on appeal that Boumediene v. Bush invalidated § 2241(e)(2) (or that (e)(2) is nonseverable from the (e)(1) habeas provision Boumediene struck); the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding (e)(2) valid and severable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boumediene invalidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2) | Boumediene struck MCA § 7 broadly, so (e)(2) is invalid | Boumediene addressed only habeas provision § 2241(e)(1); (e)(2) does not implicate the Suspension Clause | Court: Boumediene did not invalidate § 2241(e)(2); it addressed habeas only |
| Whether § 2241(e)(2) is nonseverable from § 2241(e)(1) | The two subsections must rise and fall together; absence of severability discussion implies nonseverability | Presumption of severability applies; (e)(2) is constitutionally independent and can function alone | Court: (e)(2) is severable from (e)(1) and stands alone |
| Whether § 2241(e)(2) is itself unconstitutional (access to courts / due process / Klein / equal protection / bill of attainder) | Statute denies any forum for constitutional relief, directs outcomes, discriminates against aliens, and functions as punitive legislation | Statute permissibly limits damages remedies, does not direct judicial decisions, survives rational-basis review for alien classification, and is not a bill of attainder | Court: § 2241(e)(2) is constitutional on these grounds |
| Whether § 2241(e)(2) applies to Ameur's claims | Ameur's suit is a non-habeas damages action against US agents related to detention and he was designated an enemy combatant | Government: fits § 2241(e)(2)’s plain terms and thus deprives courts of jurisdiction | Court: § 2241(e)(2) bars Ameur’s suit; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (held MCA § 2241(e)(1) unconstitutional as a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus)
- Lebron v. Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2012) (refused to recognize implied monetary remedy for constitutional claims by Guantanamo detainees)
- Hamad v. Gates, 732 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2013) (concluded § 2241(e)(2) does not implicate Suspension Clause and is constitutionally permissible)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (applied § 2241(e)(2) to bar non-habeas detainee suits)
- Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (motion-to-dismiss standard: accept well-pled facts)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (must resolve jurisdictional issues before addressing merits)
- United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) (court may decline to recognize damages remedy where military concerns counsel against it)