On The Front Lines
D.C. Circuit Court Reverses Order to Release 17 Uighurs, Chinese Muslims, Detained at Guantanamo Bay
WASHINGTON, DC -- A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has overturned District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina's order in Kiyemba v. Obama to release 17 Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, presently detained at Guantanamo Bay. A lower court had found that there is no legal basis for the executive branch to detain the Uighurs and ordered that they be released into the United States, prompting a government appeal. The Rutherford Institute, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Constitution Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a "friend of the court" brief with the Court of Appeals in November 2008 addressing the separation of powers issues at the heart of the case. A copy of the court's opinion is available here.
On October 8, 2008, Judge Urbina ruled that the Uighurs' detention was unlawful because "the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause." Even so, the Bush Administration continued to argue that only the political branches have the authority to decide to release detainees. Although the Administration admitted that the Uighur detainees are not enemy combatants, it cannot repatriate them to China because of state-sponsored persecution and it has not found another country willing to accept them.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, Constitution Project, Brennan Center for Justice, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argued in their amicus brief that overruling the District Court's order to release the Uighurs in favor of the Executive would violate the Suspension Clause and Article III of the Constitution. They also pointed out that doing so would intrude upon the power of the judiciary to decide cases. Moreover, the amicus brief countered the Executive's assertion that it possesses "wind up" authority that would allow it to decide whether and when to comply with a habeas court's release order. A copy of the amicus brief is available here.
In response to the appeal, Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph and Circuit Judge Karen Henderson found that a habeas court cannot order an alien held by the U.S. government at Guantanamo Bay be released into the U.S. without specific authorizing legislation. Circuit Judge Judith Rogers disagreed, arguing that majority's opinion would compromise the writ of habeas corpus' role as a check on arbitrary detention, but concurred that the case should be remanded for argument over whether the Executive branch has a valid alternative basis for detention. Lawyers for the government and the Uighurs agreed that they cannot be returned to China due to the risk that they would be tortured. In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in Boumediene concluded that courts have the ability to hear Guantanamo detainee habeas cases, and the Supreme Court noted that release is a "constitutionally required remedy" in habeas cases.
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional and human rights. The Brennan Center for Justice is a non-partisan public policy and law institute affiliated with the New York University School of Law. The Constitution Project is an independent bipartisan think tank. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is a professional bar association that works to advance the mission of the nation's criminal defense lawyers to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or other misconduct.
Press Contact
,
