Legal issues of case dealing with release of Guantanamo Bay detainees may be affected where detainees received offers of resettlement.
Cite as
2010 DJDAR 3019Published
Mar. 1, 2010Filing Date
Feb. 28, 2010Summary
Detainees were held at Guantanamo Bay where the Executive detention was indefinite and without authorization in law and release into the continental United States was the only possible effective remedy. A question arose as to whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of the detainees. This court granted certiorari.
Vacated and remanded. Change in underlying facts of a case may affect the legal issues presented. Here, each of the detainees had received at least one offer of resettlement in another country. Most of the detainees had accepted an offer of resettlement. Five detainees rejected two such offers and were still being held at Guantanamo Bay. Since changes to the underlying facts may affect the legal issues presented, this court declined to be the first court to rule in this case.
Per Curiam Opinion.
— Brian Cardile
Per Curiam
KIYEMBA v. OBAMA
559 U.S. ____ (2010)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAMAL KIYEMBA et al.
v.
BARACK H. OBAMA,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES etal.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 08?1234.
Decided March 1, 2010
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari, 558 U.S. ___ (2009), on the question whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay ??where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy,?? Pet. for Cert. i. By now, however, each of the detainees at issue in this case has received at least one offer of resettlement in another country. Most of the detainees have accepted an offer of resettlement; five detainees, however, have rejected two such offers and are still being held at Guantanamo Bay.
This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so. See, e.g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (??[W]e are a court of review, not of first view??).
Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.
It is so ordered.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424