# Al-Bihani v. Obama

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · August 31, 2010 · 619 F.3d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438257

## Case

- **Full name:** Ghaleb Nassar AL-BIHANI, Appellant v. Barack OBAMA, President of the United States, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** August 31, 2010
- **Citations:** 619 F.3d 1; 393 U.S. App. D.C. 57; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18169; 2010 WL 3398392
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sentelle
- **Judges:** Williams, Sentelle, Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438257

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing potential “serious consequences, such as subjecting the United States to sanctions, undermining U.S. standing in the world community, or encouraging retaliation against U.S. person-, nel abroad” should political branches “ignore or disregard international-law norms”…
- emphasizing that “[a]pplying” certain legal rules “to particular factual situations” in the foreign affairs and national security contexts involves a great deal “of subjective judgment”
- characterizing the “notion, common in the early years of the Nation ... that international law was part of the general common law that federal courts could apply” as “now discredited”
- finding “no persuasive evidence” to show “Congress would want a court to alter its interpretation of a statute based on a non-self-executing treaty”

## Opinion text

SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG, HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, GARLAND, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges,
concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc:
We decline to en banc this case to determine the role of international law-of-war principles in interpreting the AUMF because, as the various opinions issued in the case indicate, the panel’s discussion of that question is not necessary to the disposition of the merits. See Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 871, 873-74 (D.C.Cir.2010) (panel opinion); id. at 883-85 (Williams, J., concurring in the judgment); Al-Bihani v. Obama, No. 09-5051, slip op. at 1 (D.C.Cir. Aug. 31, 2010) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc); see also Gov’t’s Resp. to Pet. for Reh’g and Reh’g En Banc at 1-2 (stating that the dispute over the role of the law of war does not “change[ ] the outcome”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9438257. Public record. Not legal advice.