# Reply Brief — Boumediene v. Bush > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_2236%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2008 - **Citation:** 553 U.S. 723 ## Text No. 06-1195 RST CLERK j ) FILED MAR 2 3 2007 “tace* IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE, et al., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS STEPHEN H. OLESKEY ROBERT C. KIRSCH MARK C. FLEMING JOSEPH J. MUELLER PRATIK A. SHAH LYNNE CAMPBELL SOUTTER JEFFREY S. GLEASON LAUREN G. BRUNSWICK WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000 SETH P. WAXMAN Counsel-of Record PAUL R.Q. WOLFSON WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 DOUGLAS F. CURTIS PAUL M. WINKE JULIAN DAVIS MORTENSON WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 230-8800 Supreme Court, US a TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Oe TAA CEB etic ts ecesiniennecininninnevinitanticiansien il AE TE A seitnescitdileisicabiiaticeiaactiaiadinpaciiiegedeetiniltnicipasbaadiaiainedispiitionind 1 RT aan aT iiesauliiiesseiieentinasbcinsnisebibbeiienshibenvalienbapaceacinasciptimsiiis 8 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (TGEE) .cvuciesissecsinsaiieatigaaaniald diatphdtitinseresinueccesecessnceresecce 7 Exe parte Qutrim, SUT UB. Ta ecccccecscscccocvevensccseseseccseccceves 2,4 Felker v. Turpin, 515 U.S. GB (1996). nccccocscesccscsoscvesevescoveecseesess 2 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006)............ccccesseseeeees 2 Hamai v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) 2.0... cscsseecssssseeeeeees 3 ENS v. St. Capp, Gas G7 ois ee Cte certectreescecsecscccereveseccccecececozoree 4 In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d SAD DD 6 aan ancintervermnqceecsecceccececes 7 Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) 00... eecceseeeeees 4,5 Preiser v. Rodrigwez, 411 U.S. 475 (1978)....cccscessesseceseseeeseeees 2 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) ...........cscccccsssesesereseseees 5, 6, 7 Swain v. Pressley, 480 U.S. 372 (1977)...........ccesccsccersoosserseeseeree 2 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 CL ODD) sccsinsseissiccaierenkdcs Aenea dipeliadlipaaniicdsereerecsevecceeneeseeseeres 6 Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)... Se 4 Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1908)......ccccccessessesseseeceneees 4 Zadvydas v. Davis, 5383 U.S. 678 (2001) ........ccesesssseessessesssenees 6 STATUTES Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. ZE6 (GOT) .ccccvocecccscoveceveerscovesssssovevseee 8 Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109- TAS, TAG a aie teaeetdatatensiicnpnevcesevcevcevocvesce 1 2B GSC, Bae eatticshccecenevenescercsveecevecenes 7 SB USC, Faia eeeeeeteliertaseecicnensescenceecencececess 4 OTHER AUTHORITIES Sharpe. R.J., The Law of Habeas Corpus (2d ed. TOBD) .. Similarly, while the voluntariness of one’s presence in the United States may be relevant to claims under the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause, cf. Opp. 24-25, this Court has never suggested, much less approved, the government’s contention that involuntary presence has any bearing on the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against arbitrary de- tention. Under the government’s position, the Executive could presuma- bly abduct a foreign citizen and detain him in the United States without any meaningful judicial review/on the theory that his presence here was “involuntary.” Opp. 25. 7 on which neither the district court nor the court of appeals had ruled, that the parties had not initially briefed, and that was raised for the first time by an amicus curiae in this Court. See Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 697 (1984) (deciding a preemption issue even though it was merely “acknowledged” by the district court and court of ap- peals and was only briefed in response to a special order of this Court). Here, Petitioners’ ability to assert substantive rights on habeas was not only briefed but also decided by the district court and fully briefed and argued in the court of ap- peals. The government avoids all discussion of Petitioners’ ma- jor merits arguments: that they have validly stated claims under both common law habeas and the Constitution that warrant a hearing, contrary to Judge Leon’s holding. Pet. 23- 25. The government’s failure to address Petitioners’ right to a “searching factual review of the Executive’s claims” under the common law writ codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) (Pet. App. 46a (Rogers, J., dissenting)), or the fact that petitions indistinguishable from Petitioners’ “unquestionably describe” constitutional violations cognizable under section 2241(c)(3) (Rasul, 542 U.S. at 483 n.15), demonstrates the weakness of the government’s position on these points. The government likewise fails to confront the fact that the CSRTs’ expanded definition of “enemy combatant” al- lows the detention of people who render assistance to others who, without their knowledge, are allegedly associated with Al Qaeda. The government tellingly does not dispute that the CSRT definition would permit detention of Judge Green’s hypothetical “little old lady in Switzerland” who in- nocently gives money to a disguised terrorist organization. In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443, 475 (D.D.C. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).° Whether °The government attempts to blunt the force of Judge Green's hy- pothetical by asserting that Petitioner Boumediene was detained for sup- posedly “provid[ing] assistance” to a “known al Qaida operative” (Opp. 29 & n.13). But the government’s careful language never says that the per- 8 each and every detainee at Guantanamo fits within that hypo- thetical is irrelevant. The point is that the government’s lat- est definition of “enemy combatant,” which the government all but concedes is far broader than the definition previously put before the Court (Opp. 28-29), significantly exceeds Con- gress’s mandate in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) and the tradi- tional detention power under the laws of war. Moreover, because Petitioners clearly do not fall within these latter le- gitimate categories of detainable persons, the writ should issue forthwith. CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted. STEPHEN H. OLESKEY SETH P. WAXMAN ROBERT C. KIRSCH Counsel of Record MARK C. FLEMING PAUL R.Q. WOLFSON JOSEPH J. MUELLER WILMER CUTLER PICKERING ~ PRATIK A. SHAH HALE AND DORR LLP LYNNE CAMPBELL SOUTTER 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. JEFFREY S. GLEASON Washington, DC 20006 LAUREN G. BRUNSWICK (202) 663-6000 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP DOUGLAS F,, CURTIS 60 State Street PAUL M. WINKE Boston, MA 02109 JULIAN DAVIS MORTENSON (617) 526-6000 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 230-8800 MARCH 2007 son’s supposed status as an “al Qaida operative” was “known” to Mr. Boumediene. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_2236%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.