Kiyemba v. Obama

Supreme Court

Kiyemba v. Obama

559 U.S. 131, 130 S. Ct. 1235, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1070, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1902

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 1, 2010

Docket08-1234

StatusPublished

Cited by54 cases

This text of 559 U.S. 131 (Kiyemba v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. 131, 130 S. Ct. 1235, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1070, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1902 (2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We granted certiorari, 558 U. S. 969 (2009), on the question whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay “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. for Cert. i. By now, however, each of the detainees at issue in this case has received at least one offer of resettlement in another country. Most of the detainees have accepted an offer of resettlement; five detainees, however, have rejected two such offers and are still being held at Guantanamo Bay.

This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal. issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so. See, e. g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view”).

*132 Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We granted certiorari, 558 U. S. 969 (2009), on the question whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay “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. for Cert. i. By now, however, each of the detainees at issue in this case has received at least one offer of resettlement in another country. Most of the detainees have accepted an offer of resettlement; five detainees, however, have rejected two such offers and are still being held at Guantanamo Bay.

This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal. issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so. See, e. g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view”).

*132 Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 U.S. 131, 130 S. Ct. 1235, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1070, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiyemba-v-obama-scotus-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack