Court History
Rasul v Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) was a case before the supreme court of United States where a decision was to be determined on whether Guantanamo bay detainees held under military custody at a Naval Base in Cuba can have access to counsel and get access to courts of law and other legal tribunals. The constitutional issue is whether the courts in the United States have jurisdiction over foreign nationals. The individuals had been captured abroad in connection to the September 11 terror attacks on U.S. soil and held under detention at Guantanamo Bay (The Center for Justice and Accountability, n.d.). The government at the time maintained that the District Court had no jurisdiction to determine petitions by foreign nationals in the United States. The U.S. government, through formal appeals, thwarted the District Courts' decision to grant legal determination for individuals held in violation of international laws under military jurisdiction.
The court of appeal case was a consolidation of three cases; Rasul v. Bush, Habib v. Bush, and Al Odah v. the United States. Rasul v. Bush lawsuit was filed by families of four citizens of the United Kingdom (Rasul), an Australian citizen (Habib), and 14 citizens from the republic of Kuwait (Al Odah). All the individuals were being held at Guantanamo Bay under the Jurisdiction of the US military (Center for Justice). The petition faulted the government of the United States for detaining prisoners instead of subjecting them to trial or judicial review. According to the petitioners, such detention is in direct violation of the due process stipulated under the 5th Amendment clause. The case took place at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, pending determination by the federal court to decide whether it was legal to continue detaining foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). The matter between the petitioners and the then U.S. President George Bush took place at the US court of appeal at the District of Columbia on April 20, 2004, and the final decision and determination were made on 28th June 2004.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Road to the Supreme Court
The Centre for Justice and Accountability (CJA) advocating for detainee justice presented a petition through the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at the District of Columbia in September 2002. The petitions were filed by families of the complainants imprisoned at Guantanamo. However, the government maintained that the courts lacked jurisdiction in the determination of the matter since the individuals in question were not citizens of the United States (The Center for Justice and Accountability, n.d.). Furthermore, the government claimed that the individuals were at a facility outside the borders of the US sovereign territory. The D.C. District Court adopted the views of the US government and dismissed the cases on July 30, 2002. Following Dismissal, by the District Court, the petitioners went ahead to appeal the case at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appellate Court upheld the District Courts' decision on March 30, 2003.
The matter was brought before the Supreme Court for further determination. In the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals' decision to deny the prisoners an opportunity to face fair trial within the U.S. judicial system was dismissed. The Supreme Court determined that the US was in full control of the jurisdiction of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, therefore, defeating the issue of sovereignty. Six out of the nine-judge panel held that habeas corpus rights are operational at all Jurisdictions under the US sovereign control (Lobel, 2017). The Supreme Court further determined that individual rights to habeas are by extension under all jurisdiction of the US sovereign power. The citizenship of the petitioner cannot deter an individual from the right to habeas corpus. In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the prisoners received the go-ahead to challenge the legality of their detention.
Social Impact
The 2004 Supreme Court ruling on the Rasul v Bush case was a landmark ruling concerning the fate of prisoners held at the Guantanamo Bay by the federal government. Through its decision, the prisoners had a right to challenge the legality of detention without trial through a judicial process. Immediately after the landmark ruling, some of the petitioners successfully challenged the legality of their detention. Notably, the release of Shafiq Rasul from custody in March 2004, happened a few months before the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision prompted Congress to initiate the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005, which stripped the U.S. court's jurisdiction over claims of habeas corpus (Abel, 2019). The DTA act limits detainee’s rights to challenge their detention through other courts other than the Court of Appeal.
The Rasul ruling enabled lawyers to access Guantanamo after the recognition of judicial review. The lawyers viewed the visit as a crucial milestone in the road to the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility. The ruling attracted praise and criticism in equal measure, with dissenters opining that the court’s decision violates the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. A majority of those who were in favor of the court’s ruling exhibited dissatisfaction. On the other hand, opposers blamed the court's narrow reasoning and several questions that the court failed to address. Despite numerous opinions on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the decision was critical on the lives of individuals under detention at the Guantanamo facility (Hussain, 2019). The Supreme Court’s ruling led to the proposal of the Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2008 (ECDRA) that was meant to enshrine prisoners' rights to habeas corpus protection. However, the act did not get through.
The recognition of rights for individuals held at the Guantanamo detention facility has propelled the legal practice of several lawyers who ventured into "The rule of law lawyering." The rule of law Lawyering is a trend placing more emphasis on the relationship between politics and law in this context, the main focus being the rule of law. The political angle provides a better comprehension between the lawyers working the Guantanamo cases and political change (Lobel, 2017). Therefore, the Supreme Court ruling established the recognition of the vital role that lawyers play in political change. The Guantanamo habeas lawyers, beyond representing and defending their clients, ensure the granting of habeas corpus and follow through to ensure the clients receive justice through a due process ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGG5cXWO6qM ). The new trend, therefore, favors and supports the rule of law by curbing the prerogatives of executive powers, further securing the right to trial through a fair judicial process for all detainees.
Since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on the Rasul v. Bush case, the majority of American politicians continuously question the future of Guantanamo Bay and the possibility of its closure. For instance, in the year 2009, the-then President Barack Obama promised to facilitate the closure of the facility within a year. The promise to close the Guantanamo detention facility did not materialize during Obama's administration ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGL5WdZwk_g ). However, Obama committed to abandoning terms like an enemy combatant and war on terror in line with international law requirements (Abel, 2019). The detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay attracts scrutiny from human rights advocacy groups, for instance, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The human rights groups play a critical role in promoting human rights and denouncing the violation of the same. For example, Amnesty international is more concerned with the conditions facing detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The other organization at the frontline of advocating for prisoners right at the detention facility is the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Creative Element
Following the 2004 Supreme Court ruling, detainees at the Guantanamo Bay holding facility can access the right to a fair trial through the U.S. judicial system. Several politicians have traded the Guantanamo closure rhetoric, and the continued existence of the facility elicits sharp debates in public and political circles. The Obama administration pledged to close the facility within a year since ascending to power. However, due to the complexities surrounding the issue, closing Guantanamo Bay has been a headache for every administration. Demonstrations have been held by both detainees within the facility and human rights advocacy groups to drum up support for fair treatment of individuals detained at the detention facility as demonstrated in the following link ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMBfXtoMA-E )
The photo above shows a detainee at Guantanamo holding a placard in protest for delayed justice. The picture is significant to the Supreme Court's ruling that allows all detainees to be subjected to a fair trial. Despite the court's landmark ruling, many prisoners detained at the Guantanamo facility take too long to face trial. Continued detention without trial contravenes the gains made through the courts that grant human rights to all individuals held in the facility. The prisoner on the right side of the photo holds a placard that talks about the ills of torture. The writings on the prisoner's poster are a clear indication that despite advocating for better treatment of detainees, pain could be ongoing at Guantanamo. Therefore, to ensure that inhumane tactics used against prisoners come to a complete stop, operations at the facility must end.
References
Abel, R. L. (2019). Law’s Wars, Law’s Trials The Fate of the Rule of Law in the US ‘War on Terror’. Law in Context. A Socio-legal Journal , 36 (1), 29-35.
Hussain, N. (2019). The jurisprudence of emergency: Colonialism and the rule of law . University of Michigan Press.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). RASUL V. BUSH. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-334.ZO.html#
Lobel, J. (2017). Ziglar v. Abbasi and the Demise of Accountability. Fordham L. Rev. , 86 , 2149.
The Center for Justice and Accountability. (n.d.). Rasul v. Bush & Al-Odah v. U.S. – CJA. Retrieved from https://cja.org/what-we-do/litigation/amicus-briefs/rasul-v-bush-al-odah-v-u-s/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGL5WdZwk_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGG5cXWO6qM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMBfXtoMA-E
