Bismullah v. Gates (D.C. Cir.)

* Bismullah v. Gates (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2009)

The DC Circuit has determined that it no longer has jurisdiction to review Combatant Status Review Tribunal determinations pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act, on the ground that this aspect of the DTA cannot be severed from the jurisdiction-stripping aspect of the DTA struck down by the Supreme Court in Boumediene.  The full opinion is here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/06-1197-1158056.pdf

Key excerpts:

If it is evident the Congress would not have enacted one statutory provision had it known that another provision would be held unconstitutional, then the former provision cannot be severed from the latter and the two provisions must fall together.

Our task, therefore, is to determine with respect to the DTA “what Congress would have intended in light of the Court’s constitutional holding” in Boumediene. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 246 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In making this determination, we “must retain those portions of the Act that are (1) constitutionally valid, (2) capable of functioning independently, and (3) consistent with Congress’ basic objectives in enacting the statute.”

The parties do not dispute that the first and second requirements for severability are met – that is, DTA § 1005(e)(2) is constitutional and could function independently. The question that divides the parties is whether, now that the Supreme Court has held each detainee has a constitutional right to pursue a writ of habeas corpus, the availability of judicial review pursuant to DTA § 1005(e)(2) is consistent with the basic objective of the Congress that passed that provision.

In this case, there can be no doubt: Both the text of the relevant provisions and the enactment of successive jurisdiction-stripping provisions demonstrate clearly that the Congress would not in the DTA have given this court jurisdiction to review CSRT determinations had it known its attempt to remove the courts’ jurisdiction over habeas petitions would fail.

By Robert M. Chesney

Robert M. Chesney is Charles I. Francis Professor in Law at UT-Austin School of Law. Chesney is a national security law specialist, with a particular interest in problems associated with terrorism. Professor Chesney recently served in the Justice Department in connection with the Detainee Policy Task Force created by Executive Order 13493. He is a member of the Advisory Committee of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security, a senior editor for the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, an associate member of the Intelligence Science Board, a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the American Law Institute. Professor Chesney has published extensively on topics ranging from detention and prosecution in the counterterrorism context to the states secrets privilege. He served previously as chair of the Section on National Security Law of the Association of American Law Schools and as editor of the National Security Law Report (published by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security). His upcoming projects include two books under contract with Oxford University Press, one concerning the evolution of detention law and policy and the other examining the judicial role in national security affairs.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *