Maqaleh v. Rumsfeld
899 F. Supp. 2d 10
D.D.C.2012Background
- Petitioners Fadi Al Maqaleh, Amin Bakri, and Redha Al-Najar are third-country nationals detained at Bagram Airfield as enemy combatants for nine+ years.
- DC Circuit/Supreme Court precedents govern whether habeas corpus can reach aliens detained abroad (Boumediene framework).
- The DC Circuit in Al Maqaleh II held habeas relief not available for Bagram detainees; Boumediene factors apply but favored the government due to site/warzone status.
- Petitioners filed amended habeas petitions asserting new evidence undermines the DC Circuit rationale; respondents moved to dismiss.
- Court must decide whether new evidence undermines the DC Circuit’s rationale; prior opinion and Wahid v. Gates guide the narrow focus.
- Court grants motions to dismiss, concluding the new evidence does not undermine the DC Circuit rationale and that jurisdictional discovery is not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does petitioners' new evidence undermine Boumediene-based jurisdiction? | Al Maqaleh argues evidence shows indefinite U.S. control at Bagram. | Gates argues evidence is insufficient to alter the DC Circuit’s rationale. | No; evidence does not undermine the DC Circuit rationale. |
| Do Afghan trials and transfer plans lessen practical obstacles to habeas review? | Petitioners claim Afghan trials and transfers reduce obstacles at Bagram. | Respondents argue obstacles remain significant. | No; obstacles remain substantial. |
| Are petitioners entitled to jurisdictional discovery based on new evidence? | Petitioners seek discovery to uncover executive manipulation. | Respondents oppose discovery as unwarranted. | Denied; discovery not warranted. |
| Do DRB procedures undermine the Boumediene analysis? | DRB procedures remain weak compared to Guantanamo protections. | Revisions improve protections; still limited. | DRB improvements do not tip the Boumediene factor in petitioners’ favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (establishes three-factor Suspension Clause test for habeas in wartime detention)
- Al Maqaleh II, 605 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (holds Bagram detainees not within Boumediene habeas rights)
- Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2004) (recognizes habeas rights at Guantanamo affect jurisdictional analysis)
- Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (U.S. 1950) (discusses practical limits on habeas in occupied territories)
- White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1989) (motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; liberal review of petitions at 12(b)(1) stage)
- Rasul v. Bush (In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases), 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005) (discusses standards for habeas in context of Guantanamo)