Kiyemba v. Obama
Court Cases
In Brief – The Brennan Center for Justice and three other organizations submitted an amicus brief on October 31, 2008, in Kiyemba v. Bush, urging the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the D.C. District Court’s decision to release 17 Uighurs currently detained unlawfully at Guantánamo Bay into the United States.
Argument Presented – The amici discuss why the Constitution’s Separation of Powers determines that the District Court has the authority to order the Uighurs’ release into the United States, which is the only effective remedy in the habeas petitioners’ case.
Procedural History – The Brennan Center submitted the amicus brief to the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia on October 31, 2008. The government’s appeal is set to be heard by a three-judge panel in the Circuit Court on November 24, 2008. Meanwhile, counsel for the Uighurs has urged the Court to hear the case en banc.
In Detail – On October 31, 2008, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Constitution Project, the Rutherford Institute, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief as amici curiae in the D.C. Circuit Court in support of 17 Uighur habeas petitioners who have been detained without being charged at Guantánamo Bay. The government no longer considers these men enemy combatants, and consequently should release them immediately. Unfortunately, if these men, who are members of a minority Turkic diaspora in China, are returned to their home, they may face persecution and torture as many of their community members already have.
Under habeas law, U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina rightfully concluded that the District Court has the authority to order the 17 Uighurs released into the United States. The executive branch, however, claims that the court had no authority to order their immediate release, as the government needed time to “wind up” their detention. This argument would mean that the judiciary has no effective power to remedy illegal indefinite detention. In effect it would implement an executive suspension of the Great Writ and permit the Executive to revise unfavorable, final judgments. This claim is inconsistent with both the Suspension Clause and with the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush.
Amici argue that the government’s appeal challenges the Judiciary’s central role in the Constitution’s Separation of Powers. The Suspension Clause prohibits the executive branch entirely, and the legislative branch, except in declared instances of “rebellion or invasion,” from intruding on the Judiciary’s power to decide habeas petitions and to grant habeas relief where liberty has been denied without lawful basis.
Moreover, habeas corpus—which is integral to the Constitution’s system of checks and balances—requires a meaningful remedy if it is to serve its core purpose of checking unlawful Executive action. The amici conclude that Judge Urbina’s decision should be upheld, and that the habeas petitioners should be released from their unlawful detention into the United States, where they will not be persecuted for belonging to a minority ethnic group.
Related Court Documents
- Amicus Brief on Petition for Writ of Certiorari (05/07/09)
- Kiyemba v. Bush - Amicus Brief (10/31/08)