Hamad v. Gates (amicus brief) Historic Case
Date Filed:
April 17, 2014
Current Status
Hamad's petition was docketed by the Supreme Court on March 19, 2014. CCR's amicus brief was filed on April 17, 2014, and the government’s response to the petition was filed (after an extension) on May 19, 2014. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on June 23, 2014.
Case Description
In this amicus brief, filed in support of a former Guantánamo detainee's request that the Supreme Court review a lower court's dismissal of his case seeking damages for torture and other abuse he suffered in detention, CCR argues that the lower courts wrongly decided that Congress has the power to forbid federal courts from even considering such claims by former Guantánamo detainees.
As the our brief notes, the text, structure, and history of Article III make clear that there must always exist some form of federal judicial review over federal questions, whether by means of original jurisdiction in lower federal courts (as has existed by statute since 1875) or appellate jurisdiction (as has existed in the Supreme Court since the first Judiciary Act over claims originating in state courts of general jurisdiction). By purporting to eliminate all jurisdiction—whether original or appellate—over certain categories of federal questions, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) Sec. 7(b) violates this constitutional mandate and is void.
The Supreme Court has in the past made clear that federal courts are free to dispose of cases on "threshold questions" without first deciding that "the parties present an Article III case or controversy." The Court of Appeals could have addressed questions of personal involvement and qualified immunity prior to reaching the question of whether Sec. 7(b) validly strips jurisdiction over Hamad's claims, an issue fraught with implications that reach far beyond Guantánamo litigation, and concern the separation of powers between Congress and the Judiciary: If Congress has the power to bar all consideration of federal legal questions (arising from statutes, treaties, or the Constitution itself) then vast classes of litigants may equally be at risk of having their claims thrown out of court wholesale by future Congressional actions.
CCR’s amicus brief in Hamad is part of our longstanding commitment to pursue accountability for torture and other abuses that took place at Guantánamo, and ensure that federal courts remain open to hearing claims challenging abuses of fundamental human rights norms and constitutional rights, and remain capable of enforcing the separation of powers.
Supreme Court denies cert in Hamad.
June 23, 2014
Supreme Court denies cert in Hamad.
U.S. government files response to Hamad’s petition.
May 19, 2014
U.S. government files response to Hamad’s petition.
Hamad petitions the Supreme Court for review of his case.
May 13, 2014
Hamad petitions the Supreme Court for review of his case.
CCR files amicus brief in support of Hamad’s petition.
April 17, 2014
CCR files amicus brief in support of Hamad’s petition.
CCR’s amicus brief argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Congress has the power to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction to decide these issues. The text, structure, and history of Article III make clear that there must always exist some form of federal judicial review over federal questions, whether by means of original jurisdiction in lower federal courts (as has existed by statute since 1875) or appellate jurisdiction (as has existed in the Supreme Court since the first Judiciary Act over claims originating in state courts of general jurisdiction). By purporting to eliminate all jurisdiction—whether original or appellate—over certain categories of federal questions, MCA Sec. 7(b) violates this constitutional mandate and is void. The amicus brief notes that the Supreme Court has in the past made clear that federal courts are free to dispose of cases on "threshold questions" without first deciding that "the parties present an Article III case or controversy." The Court of Appeals could have addressed questions of personal involvement and qualified immunity prior to reaching the question of whether Sec. 7(b) validly strips jurisdiction over Hamad's claims, an issue fraught with fundamental implications for the separation of powers.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the dismissals on a different ground, finding that Congress had stripped away jurisdiction over all of Hamad's claims.
October 7, 2013
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the dismissals on a different ground, finding that Congress had stripped away jurisdiction over all of Hamad's claims.
The Court of Appeals holds that Section 7(b) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2242(e)(2), strips it of any jurisdiction to hear Hamad’s claims. The section reads as follows:
Except [for challenges to CSRT determinations under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005], no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
District court dismisses Hamad's claims on a variety of grounds. Case is appealed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
April 13, 2010
District court dismisses Hamad's claims on a variety of grounds. Case is appealed before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The district court dismissed claims against all defendants other than former Defense Secretary Gates (who did not contest that he lived within the district), for lack of personal jurisdiction (i.e., defendants lacked enough connection to the district where the court is located in Washington state). All claims against Gates under international law were disposed of by allowing the United States to substitute itself under the Westfall Act and dismiss pursuant to sovereign immunity. Finally, the district court dismissed claims for damages directly under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (co-called Bivens claims) against Gates by determining that Hamad had failed to show that the Defense Secretary was personal involved in his prolonged arbitrary detention.
Adel Hassan Hamad files suit against several military and civilian officials, seeking damages for violations of international law and of his Fifth Amendment rights.
April 7, 2010
Adel Hassan Hamad files suit against several military and civilian officials, seeking damages for violations of international law and of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Last modified: March 9, 2017
