Guantanamo detainees' appeals in Washington, D.C., courts
Guantanamo Bay detainees have been allowed to initiate appeals in Washington, D.C., courts since the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) closed off the right of Guantanamo captives to submit new petitions of habeas corpus.
It substituted a right to a limited appeal to Federal Courts of appeal in Washington, D.C.
{{cite news
| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101392.html
| title=Detainee Evidence Probe Weighed: Judge Told Guantanamo Information May Have Been Destroyed
| page=Page A02
| newspaper=Washington Post
| first=Carol D.|last= Leonnig|author-link=Carol D. Leonnig
| date= December 22, 2007
| accessdate=2008-01-06
}}
The Act allowed detainees to challenge whether their Combatant Status Review Tribunals had correctly followed the rules laid out by the Department of Defense.
After the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) closed down the pending habeas corpus cases, attorneys for the detainees initiated both a challenge to the constitutionality of the MCA's stripping of the right to habeas corpus; and they started initiating the appeals in the DC Federal Courts of appeal allowed by the DTA.
June 2008 rulings
On June 12, 2008, in Boumediene v. Bush, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Combatant Status Review Tribunals provided the detainees with insufficient protection, and re-opened the detainees' access to file habeas corpus.
On June 23, 2008, a three judge panel reviewed the evidence used to justify Parhat's designation as an "enemy combatant" and ruled that he had never been an enemy combatant after all.
{{cite news
|url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html
|title = Appeals court rules for Guantanamo prisoner
|newspaper = Washington Post
|first = James
|last = Vicini
|author-link = James Vicini
|date = June 23, 2008
|accessdate = 2008-06-23
|url-status = dead
|archiveurl = https://archive.today/20080623172915/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html
|archivedate = June 23, 2008
}}
{{cite news
|url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41907.html
|title=In first, court rejects military's ruling in Guantanamo case
|publisher=McClatchy News Service
|date=June 23, 2008
|accessdate=2008-06-23
|url-status=dead
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080628173040/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41907.html
|archivedate=June 28, 2008
}}
{{cite news
| url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/23/america/NA-GEN-US-Guantanamo-Chinese-Muslim.php
| title=US appeals court rejects classification of Chinese Muslim as an enemy combatant
| publisher=International Herald Tribune
| date=June 23, 2008
| accessdate=2008-06-23
| quote=
}}
{{cite news
| url=http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/snark-injection-for-guantanamo-trial/?hp
| title=Snark Injection for Guantanamo Trial
| work=New York Times
| first=Mike|last=Nizza|author-link=Mike Nizza
| date=2008-06-30
| accessdate=2008-06-30
| quote=
{{cite news
| url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200806/06-1397-1124487.pdf
| title=Huzaifa Parhat v. Gates
| publisher=United States Department of Justice
| author=Merrick B. Garland
| author-link=Merrick B. Garland
| date=2008-06-30
| accessdate=2008-06-30
| quote=
{{cite news
| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/washington/01gitmo.html?hp
| title=Court Is Skeptical of U.S. Evidence in Guantánamo Case
| work=New York Times
| first=William|last=Glaberson|author-link=William Glaberson
| date=2008-06-30
| accessdate=2008-06-30
| quote=
}}
Bush Presidency response
On July 21, 2008 United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on the Congress to pass legislation controlling how judges would review the detainees' habeas petitions.{{cite news
|url = https://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2140857120080721
|title = Bush law chief seeks war declaration on al Qaeda
|publisher = Reuters
|author =
|date = 2008-07-21
|accessdate = 2008-07-21
|quote =
|archive-date = 2022-06-11
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220611160209/https://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2140857120080721?sp=true
|url-status = live
{{cite news
| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/washington/22justice.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1216667611-VUzbXoMuUhzCHuHUYeD0GQ
| title=Administration Calls for Action on Detainees
| work=New York Times
| first=Eric|last=Lichblau|author-link=Eric Lichtblau
| date=2008-07-22
| accessdate=2008-07-21
| quote=
{{cite news
| url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/guantanamo-muka.html
| title=In key Gitmo case, Mukasey stays on White House path
| work=Los Angeles Times
| first=James|last=Gerstenzang|author-link=James Gerstenzang
| date=2008-07-21
| accessdate=2008-07-21
| quote=
}}
Mukasey was seeking to have the legislation control what evidence should be made public, and to proscribe releasing any of the detainees within the USA.
January 2009 ruling
On January 9, 2009, Douglas H. Ginsburg, writing for the panel, ruled that the court would not hear any additional DTA appeals.
{{cite news
|url = https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUxng-zkl2uhqdCATFQyY9_8QV3QD95JRBH00
|title = Court: no review of enemy combatant designation
|agency = Associated Press
|date = 2009-01-09
|accessdate = 2009-01-09
|url-status = dead
|archiveurl = https://archive.today/20240524080248/https://www.webcitation.org/5dhxa1mLD?url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUxng-zkl2uhqdCATFQyY9_8QV3QD95JRBH00
|archivedate = 2024-05-24
}}
{{quote|Had the Congress known its attempts to eliminate the habeas jurisdiction of the district courts would come to naught, it would not have turned around and created an additional and largely duplicative process by which a detainee could challenge his detention in the court of appeals.}}