OCTOBER TERM, 2007
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BOUMEDIENE ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 06–1195. Argued December 5, 2007—Decided June 12, 2008*
In the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress em-
powered the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force
against those . . . he determines planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks . . . on September 11, 2001.” In Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 518, 588–589, five Justices recognized that
detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United
States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a funda-
mental and accepted incident to war. Thereafter, the Defense De-
partment established Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs)
to determine whether individuals detained at the U. S. Naval Station
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were “enemy combatants.”
Petitioners are aliens detained at Guantanamo after being cap-
tured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy
combatants by CSRTs. Denying membership in the al Qaeda terror-
ist network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Tali-
ban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of
habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dis-
missed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sover-
eign U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court re-
versed, holding that 28 U. S. C. §2241 extended statutory habeas
jurisdiction to Guantana