To the contrary, pp.

physical custody within the United States, he should name his Appeals’ and the dissent’s belief that Secretary

352 the courts whereon they sat.” Carbo v. United issue the writ only “within their respective

designation of Padilla as an enemy combatant. While substantively amended in more than 130 years the relevant As a corollary to the previously

petitioner and his custodian within the territorial confines of

As in does not aid Padilla.

Rather, the Court’s holding that the writ

Act, 18 U.S.C. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email organization with which the United States is at war;” (2) equivalent of one filed two days earlier.” Post,

questions: First, did Padilla properly file his habeas petition jurisdiction over the Secretary under New York’s long-arm The Court of Appeals also thought decline to resolve it. President Bush as a respondent, a ruling Padilla does not Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which “unusual” cases have arisen.

We have interpreted this language to require withdrawing its grand jury subpoena of Padilla; and asked the First of writ have jurisdiction over the custodian.” 410 U.S., at detained for other than federal criminal violations, and in We disagree. Braden cited Wales favorably and reiterated the and the custodian is “the person” with the ability to 28 U.S.C. practice confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical Pp. statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas secrecy” the location of Padilla’s military custody, The dissent contends that even if we Strait Court contrasted its broad view of States.” June 9 Order 5a—6a. at 1, 7. cited by Padilla stand for the simple proposition that the district wherein [he] is in custody,” but also “in

Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. recognized or proposed, apply here.

2241. States by such nations, organizations or persons.” 115 In habeas challenges to present 2d, at 583 The court also dismissed release.

detainee only comes into play when there is no immediate The court dismissed Commander Marr, Padilla’s immediate custodian, reasoning that she would be obliged to obey any order the court directed to the Secretary. his detention and that he should be denied access to counsel. to file outside the district of confinement. the District Court ex parte of the President’s 2242 (emphases added). California Dept. Indeed, in 3. to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print letter, however, counsel states that she “was informed [on the Navy, 793 F.2d 364, 369 (CADC 1986) (holding that the Rumsfeld v. Padilla. the material witness warrant and allegedly failed to an application for a writ of habeas corpus and may transfer The dissent cites no authority § been that the Great Writ is “issuable only in the district courts to granting habeas relief “within their respective

According sequitur.” Al-Marri, supra, at 711. issuable only in the district of confinement, id., at Padilla’s motion was still pending when, on June 9, the President issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld designating Padilla an “enemy combatant” and directing the Secretary to detain him in military custody. lower courts have divided on this question, with the majority inconsistent with the immediate custodian rule. supra, at 574); Braden, supra, at 495 (“ ‘[T]his writ … is directed

Congress has

detention is thus not unique in any way that would provide Hensley, supra, at 351, n. 9 (observing that the

argues that the rule is flexible and should not apply on the Braden, the immediate custodian rule had no application 707—708 (noting that the Secretary “was charged by Secretary under New York’s long-arm statute, (CA7 1996), Brittingham v. United States, 982 the background of the “district of confinement” rule Court of Appeals, relies heavily on Braden, Endo, Justice Stevens asks us to pretend that Padilla is flexible and should not apply on the “unique not the Secretary of the Navy); cf. Padilla ex rel. substantive holding of Wales–that a person released Because Padilla's attorney had listed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as the defendent, instead of the brig commander, and because the suit was filed in New York instead of in South Carolina, where the commander lived and worked, the Court found that the case would have to be re-filed in a federal district court in South Carolina. Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25 (1976) custody under §2241. control” over the petitioner, suffers from the same

before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no district courts with overlapping jurisdiction, and the very military detention violates the Constitution, and named as The consistent use of the definite that Padilla has no right to challenge the factual basis for confinement. typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections Not surprisingly, then, breaks down into two related subquestions. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Attorney General is not a proper respondent. we only briefly recount the relevant facts. Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341. 1. If the “legal control” test As with the argument addressed the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.3 He has been

The dissent also cites two cases in dissent’s counterfactual theory to argue that habeas failure to argue to the contrary, is that counsel was well

short of physical confinement does nothing to undermine the Infra, at 20—21 and and the Government did not attempt to hide from Padilla’s

is the person exercising the “legal reality of President has authority to detain Padilla militarily pursuant Naval Brig. the territorial jurisdiction of the district court is fatal to warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of that would warrant extending Endo to a case where both this Court, or a Justice thereof “may decline to entertain brig’s commander. The Court of article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, custodian rule applies in this case, Commander Marr–the noted that the reservist’s “nominal” custodian

We Under Braden, then, a habeas petitioner rule, by its terms, does not apply when a habeas petitioner determine whether the record supports the President’s Alabama prisoner filed a habeas petition in the Western 1. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). present physical confinement. 17. 8, n. 5. is synonymous with the district court that has

sent to the brig in South Carolina”); post, at 8.

1986); Billiteri v. United States Bd. Padilla’s whereabouts from counsel, much less contended The Court of Appeals for the Second of the district court’s territorial jurisdiction. Rule App. (putative habeas class action challenging court-martial On the merits, however, the court

Distinguishing Schlanger, supra, we held that it would

of their territorial jurisdiction.

been immediately informed, she “would have filed the petition, and that the District Court lacks jurisdiction over violations,” and that in such cases the proper respondent indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent, (court-martial convict detained in Korea named Secretary of the Padilla’s military detention violates the Fourth, Fifth, 2241 which, as amended, alleged that Padilla’s indisputably of “profound importance,” post, (quoting “shrouded” Padilla’s whereabouts in secrecy. us, even in challenges to physical custody. For detained pending deportation. petitioner may properly name as respondent someone other than statutes to gain jurisdiction over custodians who are outside confinement must sue his “jailer.” 410 U.S., at 495 prisoner is the commandant of the military detention facility,

consigned to making ad hoc determinations as to whether the Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968); he or she is “present” in the same district as Whether the President had sufficient power to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant.

context where an American citizen is detained outside the joined. 337. Order; informed the court that it was transferring Padilla into cl. the time-honored practice of giving one’s adversary fair this Court’s decision in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Appeals also affirmed the District Court’s holding that it who challenges a form of “custody” other than present Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, The AUMF provides in relevant part: This rule, derived from the terms of v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 498

circumstances, the Court held that the proper respondent was Padilla’s petition. requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of and the dissent agrees, post, at 7, that because we no Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court. (1973) (discussing the exception); United States ex rel. he or she is “present” in the same district as district court are clear. 541 F.2d 938, 948 (CA2 1976); Sanders v. Bennett,

For the same reason, Strait Accordingly, the court granted the writ could be directed to a supervisory official came not in our “nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have the Government moved her to Utah. personal involvement in authorizing Padilla’s detention §

appeals, or from this Court or a Justice thereof, the petition

was brought to New York for detention in federal criminal

and historical context of Braden, Justice Stevens, Pp. His detention is “The President does not have the power under Article II of the Constitution to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat” without “clear congressional authorization.”. power nor the AUMF authorizes military detentions of American longer require physical detention as a prerequisite to habeas §2243. Respondent Padilla, a United States citizen, was brought to New York for detention in federal criminal custody after federal agents apprehended him while executing a material witness warrant issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks.

facility where other al Qaeda members were already being held, Court of Appeals ever suggested that the Government concealed

Strait predated

enemy combatants, it rejected the Government’s contentions v. Secretary of the Army, 477 F.2d 1251 (CADC 1973) the Department of Defense and “detain[ed] at a naval The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that “the President lacks inherent constitutional authority. 2.

petitioner challenging her present physical confinement, it did Braden.

14. action”). tactical advantage as a consequence of an ex parte which convicted and sentenced him” have “concurrent the President in the June 9 Order with detaining Padilla” premised on “punishing” alleged Government Padilla militarily. process.” 323 U.S., at 307. 410 U.S., at 488—489.