You're viewing Docket Item 42 from the case HATIM et al v. BUSH et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

________________________________________________________________

Hicks (Rasul) v. Bush



Al Odah v. United States

Habib v. Bush

Kurnaz v. Bush

Khadr v. Bush

Begg v. Bush

Khalid (Benchellali) v. Bush

El-Banna v. Bush

Gherebi v. Bush

Boumediene v. Bush

Anam v. Bush

Almurbati v. Bush

Abdah v. Bush

Al-Qosi v. Bush

Paracha v. Bush

Al-Marri v. Bush

Zemiri v. Bush

Deghayes v. Bush

Mustapha v. Bush

Abdullah v. Bush

Al-Mohammed v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 02-CV-0299 (CKK)

Case No. 02-CV-0828 (CKK)

Case No. 02-CV-1130 (CKK)

Case No. 04-CV-1135 (ESH)

Case No. 04-CV-1136 (JDB)

Case No. 04-CV-1137 (RMC)

Case No. 04-CV-1142 (RJL)

Case No. 04-CV-1144 (RWR)

Case No. 04-CV-1164 (RBW)

Case No. 04-CV-1166 (RJL)

Case No. 04-CV-1194 (HHK)

Case No. 04-CV-1227 (RBW)

Case No. 04-CV-1254 (HHK)

Case No. 04-CV-1937 (PLF)

Case No. 04-CV-2022 (PLF)

Case No. 04-CV-2035 (GK)

Case No. 04-CV-2046 (CKK)

Case No. 04-CV-2215 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-0022 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-0023 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-0247 (HHK)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 2 of 12

El-Mashad v. Bush

Al-Adahi v. Bush

Al-Joudi v. Bush

Al-Wazan v. Bush

Al-Anazi v. Bush

Alhami v. Bush

Ameziane v. Bush

Batarfi v. Bush

Sliti v. Bush

Kabir v. Bush

Qayed v. Bush

Al-Shihry v. Bush

Aziz v. Bush

Al-Oshan v. Bush

Tumani v. Bush

Al-Oshan v. Bush

Salahi v. Bush

Mammar v. Bush

Al-Sharekh v. Bush

Magram v. Bush

Al Rashaidan v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-0270 (JR)
(Consolidated with 05-CV-833)

Case No. 05-CV-0280 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-0301 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-0329 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-0345 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-0359 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-0392 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-0409 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-0429 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0431 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0454 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-0490 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-0492 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-0520 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-0526 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-0533 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0569 (JR)
(Consolidated with 05-CV-0881)
(Consolidated with 05-CV-0995)

Case No. 05-CV-0573 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0583 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0584 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-0586 (RWR)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 3 of 12

Mokit v. Bush

Al Daini v. Bush

Errachidi v. Bush

Ahmed v. Bush

Battayav v. Bush

Adem v. Bush

Aboassy v. Bush

Hamlily v. Bush

Imran v. Bush

Al Habashi v. Bush

Al Hamamy v. Bush

Hamoodah v. Bush

Khiali-Gul v. Bush

Rahmattullah v. Bush

Mohammad v. Bush

Nasrat v. Bush

Rahman v. Bush

Bostan v. Bush

Muhibullah v. Bush

Mohammad v. Bush

Wahab v. Bush

Chaman v. Bush

Gul v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-0621 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-0634 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-0640 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-0665 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-0714 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-0723 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-0748 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-0763 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-0764 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-0765 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-0766 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0795 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-0877 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-0878 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-0879 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-0880 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-0882 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-0883 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-0884 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-0885 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-0886 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-0887 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-0888 (CKK)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 4 of 12

Basardh v. Bush

Nasrullah v. Bush

Shaaban v. Bush

Sohail v. Bush

Tohirjanovich v. Bush

Al Karim v. Bush

Al-Khalaqi v. Bush

Sarajuddin v. Bush

Kahn v. Bush

Mohammed v. Bush

Mangut v. Bush

Hamad v. Bush

Khan v. Bush

Zuhoor v. Bush

Ali Shah v. Bush

Salaam v. Bush

Al-Hela v. Bush

Mousovi v. Bush

Khalifh v. Bush

Zalita v. Bush

Ahmed v. Bush

Aminullah v. Bush

Ghalib v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-0889 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-0891 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-0892 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-0993 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-0994 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-0998 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-0999 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-1000 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-1001 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-1002 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-1008 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-1009 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-1010 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-1011 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-1012 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-1013 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-1048 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1124 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1189 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-1220 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1234 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-1237 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-1238 (CKK)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 5 of 12

Al Khaiy v. Bush

Bukhari v. Bush

Pirzai v. Bush

Peerzai v. Bush

Alsawam v. Bush

Mohammadi v. Bush

Al Ginco v. Bush

Ullah v. Bush

Al Bihani v. Bush

Mohammed v. Bush

Saib v. Bush

Hatim v. Bush

Al-Subaiy v. Bush

Dhiab v. Bush

Ahmed Doe v. Bush

Sadkhan v. Bush

Faizullah v. Bush

Faraj v. Bush

Khan v. Bush

Ahmad v. Bush

Amon v. Bush

Al Wirghi v. Bush

Nabil v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-1239 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-1241 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1242 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-1243 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-1244 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-1246 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-1310 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-1311 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-1312 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-1347 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-1353 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1429 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1453 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1457 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-1458 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-1487 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1489 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1490 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-1491 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-1492 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-1493 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-1497 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-1504 (RMC)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 6 of 12

Al Hawary v. Bush

Shafiiq v. Bush

Kiyemba v. Bush

Idris v. Bush

Attash v. Bush

Al Razak v. Bush

Mamet v. Bush

Rabbani v. Bush

Zahir v. Bush

Akhtiar v. Bush

Ghanem v. Bush

Albkri v. Bush

Al-Badah v. Bush

Almerfedi v. Bush

Zaid v. Bush

Al-Bahooth v. Bush

Al-Siba'i v. Bush

Al-Uwaidah v. Bush

Al-Jutaili v. Bush

Ali Ahmed v. Bush

Khandan v. Bush

Kabir (Sadar Doe) v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-1505 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1506 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1509 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1555 (JR)
(Consolidated with 05-CV-1725)

Case No. 05-CV-1592 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-1601 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-1602 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-1607 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-1623 (RWR)
(Consolidated with 05-CV-01236)

Case No. 05-CV-1635 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-1638 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-1639 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-1641 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-1645 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-1646 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-1666 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-1667 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-1668 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-1669 (TFH)

Case No. 05-CV-1678 (GK)

Case No. 05-CV-1697 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-1704 (JR)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 7 of 12

Al-Rubaish v. Bush

Qasim v. Bush

Sameur v. Bush

Al-Harbi v. Bush

Aziz v. Bush

Hamoud v. Bush

Al-Qahtani v. Bush

Alkhemisi v. Bush

Gamil v. Bush

Al-Shabany v. Bush

Othman v. Bush

Ali Al Jayfi v. Bush

Jamolivich v. Bush

Al-Mudafari v. Bush

Al-Mithali v. Bush

Al-Asadi v. Bush

Alhag v. Bush

Nakheelan v. Bush

Al Subaie v. Bush

Ghazy v. Bush

Al-Shimrani v. Bush

Amin v. Bush

Al Sharbi v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-1714 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-1779 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-1806 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-1857 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-1864 (HHK)

Case No. 05-CV-1894 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-1971 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-1983 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-2010 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-2029 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-2088 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-2104 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-2112 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-2185 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-2186 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-2197 (HHK)

Case No. 05-CV-2199 (HHK)

Case No. 05-CV-2201 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-2216 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-2223 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-2249 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-2336 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-2348 (EGS)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 8 of 12

Ben Bacha v. Bush

Zadran v. Bush

Alsaaei v. Bush

Razakah v. Bush

Al Darbi v. Bush

Haleem v. Bush

Al-Ghizzawi v. Bush

Awad v. Bush

Al-Baidany v. Bush

Al Rammi v. Bush

Said v. Bush

Al Halmandy v. Bush

Mohammon v. Bush

Al-Quhtani v. Bush

Thabid v. Bush

Al Yafie v. Bush

Rimi v. Bush

Almjrd v. Bush

Al Salami v. Bush

Al Shareef v. Bush

Khan v. Bush

Hussein v. Bush

Al-Delebany v. Bush

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-CV-2349 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-2367 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-2369 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-2370 (EGS)

Case No. 05-CV-2371 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-2376 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-2378 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-2379 (JR)

Case No. 05-CV-2380 (CKK)

Case No. 05-CV-2381 (JDB)

Case No. 05-CV-2384 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-2385 (RMU)

Case No. 05-CV-2386 (RBW)

Case No. 05-CV-2387 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-2398 (ESH)

Case No. 05-CV-2399 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-2427 (RJL)

Case No. 05-CV-2444 (RMC)

Case No. 05-CV-2452 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-2458 (RWR)

Case No. 05-CV-2466 (RCL)

Case No. 05-CV-2467 (PLF)

Case No. 05-CV-2477 (RMU)

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 9 of 12

Al-Harbi v. Bush
________________________________________________________________

Case No. 05-CV-2479 (HHK)

)

NOTICE

Respondents hereby provide notice regarding steps being taken in the wake of the

Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. —, slip op. (U.S. June 29,

2006), on the issue of whether the District Court may exercise jurisdiction over cases, such as

those captioned above, pending on the date of enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005,

Pub. L. No. 109-148, tit. X, 119 Stat. 2680 (“the Act”).

The Act, among other things, amends 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to eliminate court jurisdiction to

consider habeas petitions and other claims by aliens held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo

Bay, id., § 1005(e)(1), and creates an exclusive review mechanism in the D.C. Circuit to address

the validity of the detention of such aliens and final decisions of any military commissions, id.,

§ 1005(e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3). Section 1005(e)(2) of the Act states that the D.C. Circuit “shall have

exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any final decision of a Combatant Status

Review Tribunal that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant,” and it further

specifies the scope and intensiveness of that review. While the Supreme Court in Hamdan held

that § 1005(e)(1) of the Detainee Treatment Act did not apply to habeas petitions pending prior

to the enactment of the Act, it recognized that the exclusive review provisions of the Act did

expressly apply to cases pending prior to enactment. Although the petitioner in Hamdan escaped

the Act because his challenge did not involve a final decision of a military commission within the

exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under § 1005(e)(3), the Court reserved the

question of the effect of the exclusive review provisions of the Act on other cases, stating that

- 1 -

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 10 of 12

“[t]here may be habeas cases that were pending in the lower courts at the time the DTA was

enacted that do qualify as challenges to ‘final decision[s]’ within the meaning of subsection

(e)(2) or (e)(3). We express no view about whether the DTA would require transfer of such an

action to the District of Columbia Circuit.” Hamdan, slip op. at 18, n.14. The above-captioned

cases, to the extent they do not involve military commission claims, are such cases, i.e.,

challenges to petitioners’ designation as enemy combatants through Combatant Status Review

Tribunals. Given the Act’s investment of exclusive review in the Court of Appeals, the District

Court lacks jurisdiction over the cases for it is well-settled that an exclusive-review scheme,

where applicable, precludes the exercise of jurisdiction under more general grants of jurisdiction,

including habeas corpus. Cf., e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 703 (“form of proceeding for judicial review is the

special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute

or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, including actions

for . . . writs of . . . habeas corpus”); Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 207-09

(1994) (“exclusive” jurisdiction under federal Mine Act precludes assertion of district court

jurisdiction); FCC v. ITT World Communications, Inc., 466 U.S. 463, 468 (1984) (Hobbs Act)

(“The appropriate procedure for obtaining judicial review of the agency’s disposition of these

issues was appeal to the Court of Appeals as provided by statute.”); Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d

994, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (Ҥ 2241 is ordinarily reserved for instances in which no other

judicial remedy is available”); Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Because

judicial review was available . . . the district court was not authorized to hear this § 2241 habeas

petition.”). See also Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 77

(D.C. Cir. 1984) (“even where Congress has not expressly stated that statutory jurisdiction is

- 2 -

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 11 of 12

‘exclusive’ . . . a statute which vests jurisdiction in a particular court cuts off original jurisdiction

in other courts in all cases covered by that statute”) (footnote omitted); id. at 75, 78-79 (request

for relief in district court that might affect Court of Appeals’ future, exclusive jurisdiction is

subject to the exclusive review of the Court of Appeals).

For these reasons, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan has not resolved the issue of

whether this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the above-captioned cases in light of the Act,

to the extent the cases do not involve military commission claims addressed by Hamdan. The

effect of the Act on pending cases was addressed in supplemental briefing in the Guantanamo

detainee appeals pending before the D.C. Circuit (Boumediene v. Bush, No. 05-5062, and Al

Odah v. United States, No. 05-5064), and respondents have recently requested that the Court of

1

Appeals permit additional briefing on the effect of the Hamdan decision on this issue. 2

Accordingly, respondents will continue to assert that a stay of proceedings in the above-

captioned cases is appropriate pending the resolution of the effect of the Act by the D.C. Circuit.3

Dated: July 7, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General

1

Oral argument before the D.C. Circuit was held on March 22, 2006.

2

Petitioners in the cases involved in the appeals have opposed respondents’ request for

supplemental briefing.

3

In addition, respondents will continue to assert that a stay remains appropriate for the

separate and independent reason that the substantive issues in these cases, including whether
petitioners have constitutional due process rights and, if so, whether the Combatant Status
Review Tribunals satisfy any such rights, which were briefed and argued before the Court of
Appeals prior to enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act, remain under consideration by the
Court of Appeals.

- 3 -

Case 1:05-cv-01429-UNA Document 42 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 12 of 12



DOUGLAS N. LETTER
Terrorism Litigation Counsel

/s/ Terry M. Henry
JOSEPH H. HUNT (D.C. Bar No. 431134)
VINCENT M. GARVEY (D.C. Bar No. 127191)
TERRY M. HENRY
JAMES J. SCHWARTZ
PREEYA M. NORONHA
ROBERT J. KATERBERG
NICHOLAS J. PATTERSON
ANDREW I. WARDEN
EDWARD H. WHITE
MARC A. PEREZ
Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 514-4107
Fax: (202) 616-8470

Attorneys for Respondents

- 4 -