Salahi v. Obama
393 U.S. App. D.C. 173
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- Salahi was detained at Guantanamo under the AUMF as allegedly part of al-Qaida.
- District court found Salahi was an al-Qaida sympathizer, not part of the organization at capture.
- Government sought habeas detention, relying on Salahi’s alleged ties rather than criminal charges.
- Salahi had sworn bayat to al-Qaida in 1991; evidence of subsequent actions was contested and discounted due to mistreatment.
- District court focused on al-Qaida's command structure to determine “part of” status, but evidentiary gaps remained.
- D.C. Circuit remands for further fact-finding in light of Awad and Bensayah, remanding to assess Salahi’s status as of capture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Salahi 'part of' al-Qaida at capture? | Salahi's oath and limited actions show no ongoing control. | Evidence of ties and associations indicates containment within al-Qaida's influence. | Remand for case-specific factual findings |
| Does oath of bayat trigger burden shift to Salahi to disprove membership? | Burden should remain with government to prove membership at capture. | A presumption may apply that oath entails ongoing membership. | Burden-shift not appropriate here; require case-by-case fact finding |
| Was the district court's reliance on the 'command structure' test correct? | Command-structure proof is not the sole determinant of membership. | Command structure is a relevant framework for assessing 'part of'. | Remand to apply functional, case-specific analysis per Awad and Bensayah |
| Must a broader, cumulative evidentiary approach be used rather than isolating items? | Evidence must be viewed collectively to determine status. | Individual pieces may support conclusion when combined. | Remand to evaluate evidence collectively per Al-Adahi |
Key Cases Cited
- Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (part-of analysis must be functional and case-specific)
- Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (evidence of command involvement is sufficient but not necessary)
- Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (evidence must be viewed collectively; avoid atomized reasoning)
- Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (combatant-status tribunal framework; foundational for detainee status)
- Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (legal questions about whether facts establish 'part of' status are de novo)