About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 [1] (2009)
Kiyemba, et al. v. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

handle is hein.preview/prvwpepsotg0001 and id is 1 raw text is: U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General Washington, D.C. 20530 February 19, 2010 Honorable William K. Suter Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543 Re: Jamal Kiyemba v. Barack H. Obama S. Ct. No. 08-1234 Dear Mr. Suter: I am writing in response to the February 12, 2010, order of this Court in the above- captioned case, which is scheduled for oral argument on March 23, 2010. In that order, the Court directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the following question: What should be the effect, if any, of the developments discussed in the letters submitted by the parties on February 3 and 5 on the Court's grant of certiorari in this case? Petitioners are members of the Uighur ethnic minority group in China who were previously held in military detention in an enemy status at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The United States agreed in 2008 that petitioners should not be held on that basis and continued to pursue efforts to resettle them. When a person is released from military detention based on enemy status, the assumption is that he will be returned to his country of citizenship. But the Uighurs reasonably fear torture in China, so consistent with longstanding policy, the United States has agreed to resettle them elsewhere. Petitioners sought an order from the habeas court requiring the Executive Branch to bring them to the United States and release them here because, in their view, resettlement efforts had failed. The district court issued such an order, but the court of appeals reversed. This Court granted certiorari to address the following question: Whether a federal court exercising its habeas jurisdiction, as confirmed by Boumediene v. Bush, has no power to order the release of prisoners held by the Executive for seven years, where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy. Pet. i (citation omitted). In letters dated February 3, 2010, and February 5, 2010, counsel for the parties informed the Court that the government of Switzerland has agreed to accept for resettlement two of the petitioners in this case, Arkin Mahmud and Bahtiyar Mahnut. One of those men (Arkin Mahmud) had not previously received an offer of resettlement from any country. The parties also informed the Court that the two men had accepted Switzerland's offer, and are

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most