Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) — the Supreme Court's ruling on the habeas petitions of twelve Kuwaiti and two Australian detainees at Guantánamo Bay

THE PETITIONERS. Two Australian and twelve Kuwaiti citizens captured abroad during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban and held at Guantánamo since early 2002, with, on the government's estimate, about 640 other non-Americans. Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah and the eleven other Kuwaitis sought to be told of any charges, to meet their families and counsel, and to have access to a court or other impartial tribunal. Their relatives alleged that they had been taken captive "by local villagers seeking promised bounties or other financial rewards" while providing humanitarian aid, and handed to US custody (footnote 4).

THE HOLDING. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit had held, relying on Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), that aliens detained outside US sovereign territory could not seek habeas. The Supreme Court reversed: the petitioners differed from the Eisentrager prisoners — they were not nationals of countries at war with the United States, denied any hostile acts, had never been charged or tried, and had been held for over two years in territory under exclusive US jurisdiction and control (the 1903 lease and 1934 treaty with Cuba). Braden (1973) had removed the statutory basis of Eisentrager, since habeas acts on the custodian, who can be served. United States courts therefore "have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay". Reversed and remanded. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment; Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas, dissented.

USE IN A REPORT: the foundational ruling on the Kuwaiti Guantánamo detainees' access to US courts. It decides jurisdiction only; the lawfulness of each man's detention was decided later, case by case (see the Dossier's entry on the District Court's habeas rulings).

The Court decided only that the courts could hear the petitions; it made no finding on whether any detainee had been a combatant, and the relatives' account of humanitarian work is recorded as an allegation. The later rulings on four of the Kuwaiti petitioners (two petitions granted, two denied) show how the evidence differed from man to man, and a report should not treat the twelve as a single case.