Supreme Court Grants Habeas Rights
Court Rules that Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Can Challenge Detentions
Jun 16, 2008
Nearing the end of its spring 2008 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a monumental decision affecting detainees in Guantanamo Bay. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the prisoners may avail themselves of habeas corpus, that is, they can challenge their detentions in federal court.
Habeas corpus is a right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution that allows a prisoner to challenge his detention in either a state or federal court. In fact, the Constitution presupposes that it exists and severely limits when the habeas corpus rights can be suspended: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
In an effort to propagate its war-on-terror agenda, however, the Bush administration did not label these Guantanamo Bay detainees as prisoners, but instead gave them the distinction of “enemy combatants,” a label crafted by former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Thus, the argument was that basic constitutional rights did not apply to the prisoners—a position which restricted their access to counsel and left them languishing in a prison cell for as many as six years, all of them unable to challenge their detentions.
Now, that day is over. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that unless the specific conditions for suspending habeas corpus are in effect, the various political branches may not “switch the Constitution on and off at will.” To do so, he said, “would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say what the law is.”
This was not the first time that the Court rebuked the administration for its repeated denial of detainees’ rights. In 2004, the Court ruled that the Guantanamo prisoners could use habeas corpus to challenge their detentions. In a response to that ruling, a Republican-controlled Congress enacted a law that prevented federal courts from hearing an appeal from a Guantanamo prisoner, thus effectively ending the prisoners’ habeas corpus rights. Four years later, the Court again sided with liberty and justice instead of the Bush administration.
Justice Scalia, in a scathing dissent, argued that the Court’s decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” It should also be noted that Scalia wrote that legalized incest was right around the corner in the wake of the Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which said that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody’s business but their own.
In response to Scalia’s terror-related fear mongering—which up until now had not permeated the highest court in the land—Kennedy pointed out that nothing should stop a prisoner from a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge his detention in a court of law. This is regardless of whether it is a time of war or a time of peace: “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," he said.
Dealing with constitutional issues during a time of war is never an easy thing. It is good to know, however, that despite the fact that other constitutional rights have been thrown to the wayside in the last seven years, at least one of them remains intact—everyone has a right to challenge in a court of law the very fact that he is being held as a prisoner.
