Docket No.: 03-334 Topics:
Argued: April 20, 2004
Decided: June 28, 2004
Consolidated with: al Odah v. United States, No. 03-343
28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Administrative Procedure, Alien Tort Statute, Article I, Bill of Rights, Due Process, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, RICO, Suspension Clause, abuse of discretion, antitrust, habeas, habeas corpus, judicial review, separation of powers, stare decisis
PartyNames: Shafiq Rasul, et al. v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
Petitioner: Shafiq Rasul, et al.
Respondent: George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.
Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Citation: CA DC, 321 F.3d 1134. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: 1. Did the Court of Appeals err in extending this Court's decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager , 339 U.S.763 (1950), to create a rigid rule barring any United States court from ever, in any circumstance, considering a claim made by a foreign national held in U.S. custody outside U.S. sovereign territory? 2. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding categori cally that the Constitution gives "no constitutional rights, under the due process clause or otherwise," to foreign nationals who are subjected to injuriousaction by the U.S. Government unless they have se t foot physically within territory over which the United States has technical sovereignty (as distinguished from exclusive jurisdiction and control)? 3. Consistently with the Constitution, federal stat utes, regulations and treaties, and international law, may U.S. officials imprison citizens of friendly nations indefinitely without charges, without access totheir families or counsel, and without even a hear ing to determine whether any basis exists for their detentions, after transporting them forcibly thousands of miles to an area under the exclusivejurisdiction and control of the United States? 4. May U.S. government officials evade judicial examination of their actions in detaining people incommunicado, and escape the reach of the Constituti on and of federal law, simply by electing toconfine their prisoners in an area technically outside U.S. sovereign territory although within its
Supreme Court Docket