AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Terrorism, Enemy Combatants, & Military Prisoners
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government detained hundreds of illegal aliens, pending a determination of their possible connection to terrorist activity. The plaintiffs, six men of Arab or South Asian descent who were among the detainees and were subsequently removed from the country, filed a proposed class action lawsuit against federal executive officials and wardens, seeking damages, and claiming that their “harsh pretrial conditions” were punitive, violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and were based on race, religion, or national origin. They also asserted that the defendant wardens allowed guards to abuse them. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected all these claims. In 42 U.S.C. 1983, Congress provided a damages remedy for plaintiffs whose constitutional rights were violated by state officials. There was no corresponding remedy for constitutional violations by federal agents. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized (in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, #301, 403 U. S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619) an implied damages action for violations of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures by federal agents. The Court later allowed Bivens-type remedies in Fifth Amendment gender-discrimination and Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishments cases. Bivens, however, will not be further extended to a new context if there are “special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.” To avoid interference with sensitive Executive Branch functions or any inquiry into national-security issues, the Court ruled, a Bivens remedy should not be extended to the claims concerning confinement conditions. With respect to the wardens, Congress did not provide a damages remedy against federal jailers in the Prison Litigation Reform Act 15 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s expressed caution about extending Bivens. Qualified immunity bars the claims of conspiracy to violate civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). Reasonable officials in the defendants’ positions would not have known with sufficient certainty that section 1985(3) prohibited their joint consultations and the resulting policies. There was no clearly established law on the issue of whether agents of the same executive department are distinct enough to “conspire” within the meaning of the statute. Ziglar v. Abbasi, #15-1358, 198 L. Ed. 2d 290, 2017 U.S. Lexis 3874.
Detainees at Guantanamo claimed that
two new policies there placed an undue burden on their ability to meet with
their attorneys. The policies related to where they were allowed to meet with
lawyers, while the second involved the thoroughness of the search they had to
submit to before attorney visits. A federal appeals court upheld both policies
as reasonable and related to legitimate security concerns. "Tenuous"
evidence of an improper motive to obstruct access to lawyers could not overcome
the legitimate rational connection between the thorough searches and the
security needs of the facility, and holding all meetings between detainees and
their visitors, including lawyers, at a special camp away from the housing
camps, was reasonable, as fewer guards were then needed. Hatim v. Obama,
#13-5218, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 14759 (D.C. Cir.).
Detainees at Guantanamo
Bay who were cleared for release but remain detained there went on a hunger
strike demanding their release, and were force fed. A federal appeals court
held that they had the right to challenge the conditions of their confinement
in a habeas corpus proceeding, and that their claims were not barred by the
Military Commissions Act. The prisoners, however, failed to establish that they
were entitled to a preliminary injunction against the forced feeding, since it
served legitimate penological interests in preserving the lives of the
detainees and maintaining security and discipline. They failed to show a
likelihood that the force-feeding was unconstitutional. The court also ruled
that the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to
the detainees. As nonresident aliens, they were not protected persons under the
statute. Aamer v. Obama, #13-5223, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2513 (D.C. Cir.).
A
former Guantanamo prisoner held as an enemy combatant for seven years was
released after being granted habeas corpus. He filed a lawsuit seeking to
recover for injuries allegedly suffered during his detention. A federal appeals
court ruled that a statute barred claims brought on behalf of aliens if they
were determined by the Combat Status Review Tribunals to have been properly
detained. The appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the decision by
Congress to deny jurisdiction to the courts to entertain such claims. Janko v.
Gates, #12-5017, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 934 (D.C. Cir.).
A prisoner convicted of terrorism-related crimes
involving the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya was subjected to
special administrative measures forbidding him from receiving two Arabic
language newspapers he had previously received and prohibiting him from
corresponding with his nieces and nephews. A federal appeals court rejected a
claim that these measures violated his First Amendment rights. The government's
interestin restricting his rights was reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests, and the prisoner had the burden of showing that there
was no legitimate, rational basis for the increased communication restrictions.
Given the belief that the prisoner had a "proclivity for violence"
based on his conviction for acts of terrorism, the warden expressed the concern
that “communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious
bodily injury to persons.” This was a rational basis for the restrictions. The
restriction on the Arabic newspaper was similarly upheld as justified by the
need to prevent him from receiving information and instructions in a manner
difficult to detect. Al-Owhali v. Holder, #11-1274, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 16401
(10th Cir.).
A prisoner (Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen and member of
al Qaeda) presently confined after being convicted of terrorism sued various
federal officials based on his prior military detention as an "enemy
combatant." He asked for an injunction preventing government officials
from designating him as an "enemy combatant" in the future and
detaining him on that basis and nominal damages of one dollar from each
defendant. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit. It
found that a federal civil rights suit could not be brought against federal
officials on these issues due to separation of powers concerns, and the authority
over military affairs granted to Congress and the President. The plaintiff also
did not have standing to seek to enjoin the possible future designation of the
prisoner as an "enemy combatant," since he did not show any immediate
and real threat that this would occur. The court also rejected the prisoner's
claim that he could sue federal officials under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, for alleged violations of his
religious freedom while he was a military prisoner. Lebron v. Rumsfeld,
#11-6480, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 1246 (4th Cir. 2012).
A federal trial court has ruled that the U.S.
government has the legal authority to hold and prosecute detainees currently
held at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility despite no longer asserting that
it seeks to do so on the basis that they are "enemy combatants." The
authority of the government to detain persons believed to have been part of
terrorist organizations is "entirely consistent with the law of war
principles that govern non-international armed conflicts." In Re:
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation #05-0763, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 43249
(D.D.C. May 19, 2009).
The U.S. Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, No.
06-1195, 2008 U.S. Lexis 4887, ruled that aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba as enemy combatants after their capture in Afghanistan or elsewhere
overseas are constitutionally entitled to pursue claims for habeas corpus, and
found that the procedures provided in a 2005 statute for review of the
detainees' status are inadequate and constitute an unconstitutional suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus. In another case, Munaf v. Geren, No. 06-1666,
2008 U.S. Lexis 4888, decided the same day, June 12, 2008, the Court ruled that
the habeas corpus statute applies to U.S. citizens held overseas by U.S.
military forces, such as in Iraq, even if those forces are operating as a
component of an multinational coalition. The U.S. citizens being detained had
traveled voluntarily to Iraq and are alleged to have committed crimes there.
The Court further ruled, however, that the particular plaintiffs in that case
were not entitled to relief to enjoin the U.S. from transferring them to the
custody of Iraqi authorities for criminal prosecution.
A man born in Qatari, who was lawfully in the
U.S., and who has been detained without charges since 2003, when President Bush
designated him as an "enemy combatant," was ordered released by a
federal appeals court. The court, by a 2-1 vote, ruled that holding civilians
as detainees without charges for an unlimited period of time could result in
"disastrous consequences for the Constitution, and the country." The
court also found that there was no evidence that the detainee had been engaged
in the use of arms against the U.S. on a battlefield or in a combat zone, and
was therefore not an enemy combatant. The U.S. government was ordered to
release him, within a reasonable time, from military custody. He could still,
the court noted, be subjected to either criminal charges, if any were brought, or
to deportation proceedings. Al-Marri v. Wright, #06-7427, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
14109 (4th Cir.).
Prisoner's placement on a watch list by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security was not a deprivation of a due process liberty
or property right, even if it did allegedly result in prison officials placing
him in administrative detention at times of elevated national security. Almahdi
v. Ridge, No. 04-3120, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26938 (3rd Cir.). [N/R]
The U.S. Attorney General had statutory authority
to determine the place of detention of a detainee in the custody of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (BICE) while awaiting review of an order for his removal from the
country, so that the detainee had no viable federal civil rights claims
concerning his transfer to another facility or his detention. Drummond v. State
of New York, No. 06-CV-0255, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80178 (W.D.N.Y.). [N/R]
The U.S. government sought to review materials
impounded from various foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after
detainees committed suicide or attacked guards, and the prisoners sought the
return of documents seized from their cells. Among the papers seized from all
detainees there following the incidents, some handwritten notes were on papers
stamped "attorney-client privileged" that appear to relate to
suicides and other security issues. A federal trial court upheld the
government's review of impounded material containing attorney-client communications
between detainees and their lawyers, so long as this was done using a
"filter litigation team" of personnel, including translators, who
would not be involved in future litigation, and would be prohibiting from
disclosing any privileged attorney-client communications to anyone other than
the court, with an exception for information concerning national security.
Hicks (Rasul) v. Bush, No. 02-0299, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 65973 (D.D.C.). [N/R]
The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote (with the
Chief Justice not participating), holds that the President did not have
authority to conduct military tribunal trials for detainees at the detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and that the military commission convened
had a structure and procedures violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184,126 S. Ct.
2749 (2006). [N/R]
Former prisoner's claim that she received
inadequate medical care while in custody at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in
Kansas was properly dismissed, since she had no private right of action, as she
sought, for alleged violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture or under
any federal law relating to the U.S. government's obligations under that
Convention. Renkel v. U.S., No. 05-3420, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 19604 (6th Cir.).
[N/R]
U.S. soldier's claim that his Eighth Amendment
rights to adequate medical treatment were violated while he was confined at the
U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (USDB) were barred by
the doctrine stated in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), barring
claims by members of the military against the U.S. government under the Federal
Tort Claims Act "where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of
activity incident to service." Tootle v. USDB Commandant, No. 04-3018, 390
F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court rules that foreign nationals
detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, captured in Afghanistan hostilities, have a
right to access to U.S. courts to challenge the legality of their detention,
and that U.S. citizen detained as an "enemy combatant" for allegedly
fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan, also had a due process right to
access to a "neutral decision maker" to challenge the factual basis
for his detention. In a third case involving a U.S. citizen detained as an
"enemy combatant" on U.S. soil for alleged involvement in terrorist
conspiracy, Court does not reach ultimate issues because of procedural defects
in court filing. Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4760; Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4761; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, No. 03-1027,
2004 U.S. Lexis 4759. [2004 JB Aug]
Two Wisconsin inmates did not have standing to
sue Middle Eastern nations such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, the Sudan, and Libya, and
terrorist groups such as Al Qaida and the Taliban for millions of dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages in a lawsuit filed with the purported
intention of "lending a hand" in the war on terrorism. They had
personally never been victims of terrorism and were "no more likely than
the average American citizen to be victims of future attacks." George v.
Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 02-3195, 63 Fed. Appx. 917 (7th Cir. 2003).[N/R]
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft rules that
illegal immigrants can be held indefinitely without bond if their cases present
national security concerns. The opinion was requested by the Homeland Security
Department, which now has authority over most immigration matters, after the
Board of Immigration Appeals upheld a judge's decision to release a Haitian
asylum-seeker on $2,500 bond. Ashcroft ordered that this decision be vacated,
and that the asylum-seeker be denied bond and detained "pending
appropriate disposition and proceedings respecting his status under the
immigration laws." In Re: D-J-, Respondent, 23 I&N Dec. 572 (A.G.
2003). Interim decision #3448, April 17, 2003. [N/R]
Requirement that a prisoner exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit applies
to pretrial detainees. Plaintiff prisoner's lawsuit seeking his release from
special housing unit rejected for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Additionally, despite the allegedly non-violent nature of the crime with which
the detainee was charged, the government presented evidence asserted to link
him in some way to individuals implicated in the attacks of September 11, 2001,
raising significant security issues with regard to the conditions of his
pre-trial incarceration. United States of America v. Al-Marri, 239 F. Supp. 2d
366 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]