Shaker Aamer v. Barack Obama
408 U.S. App. D.C. 291
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Detainees Belbacha, Dhiab, and Aamer at Guantanamo allege forced-feeding during hunger strikes while challenging confinement conditions.
- District courts denied preliminary injunctions, relying on MCA § 7’s jurisdiction-stripping to bar such challenges.
- This court held that, for habeas purposes, detainees’ claims about confinement conditions may fall within statutory habeas, not barred by MCA § 7, but denied injunctive relief on merits.
- Court analyzed Boumediene’s holding and Kiyemba/Al-Zahrani to determine whether petitioners’ claims sound in habeas and remain within jurisdiction.
- Court distinguished between “claims sounding in habeas” and other actions; concluded the case at hand involves habeas-sound claims, meriting jurisdiction to proceed to merits, but with denial of injunction on balance of equities and public interest.
- RFRA claim against force-feeding for nonresident aliens was held moot or non-applicable under Rasul precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners’ force-feeding claims sound in habeas and are within § 2241(e)(2) jurisdiction. | Petitioners argue habeas corpus covers confinement-condition claims. | Government contends MCA § 2241(e)(2) bars non-habeas actions on detention-related conditions. | Claims sound in habeas and fall within § 2241(e)(2) jurisdiction. |
| Whether RFRA applies to nonresident aliens at Guantanamo. | RFRA protects petitioners’ religious rights at Guantanamo. | Rasul barred RFRA protection for nonresident aliens. | RFRA does not extend to nonresident aliens. |
| Whether the government’s force-feeding protocol warrants a preliminary injunction against ongoing practice. | Force-feeding is unconstitutional and violates rights; injunction should issue. | Penalty interests support force-feeding; injunction would risk harm and undermine security. | No likelihood of success on merits and balance/public-interest factors favor denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (U.S. 2008) (struck down MCA § 7 as unconstitutional suspension of the writ; restored habeas access.)
- Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (restated Boumediene’s effects on habeas jurisdiction for Guantanamo detainees.)
- Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (§ 2241(e)(2) not affecting habeas jurisdiction; distinction from § 2241(e)(1).)
- Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (RFRA does not extend to Guantanamo detainees.)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1973) (established core-habeas concept; left conditions claims open.)
- Hudson v. Hardy, 424 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (habeas tests not only the fact but the form of detention.)