OCTOBER TERM, 2007 Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing 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 beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See
Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,
200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
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 forceagainst those . . . he determines planned, authorized, committed, oraided the terrorist attacks . . . on September 11, 2001.” In
, 542 U. S. 507, 518, 588–589, five Justices recognized thatdetaining individuals captured while fighting against the UnitedStates 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 enemycombatants 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 Guantanamo. See
, 542 U. S. 466, 473
Petitioners’ cases were then consolidated into two proceedings. In the first, the district judge granted the Government’s motion to dis-miss, holding that the detainees had no rights that could be vindi- —————— *Together with No. 06–1196,
Al Odah, Next Friend of Al Odah, et al.
United States et al.,
also on certiorari to the same court.