Munaf v. Geren

77 Citing briefs

  1. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed July 16, 2008

    Boumediene reaffirmed these points, going out of its way to quote Hamdan approvingly. 128 S. Ct. at 2262 (“[A]bstention is not appropriate in cases…in which the legal challenge ‘turns on the status of the persons as to whom the military asserted its power.’”) (internal citations and punctuation omitted); id.

  2. Wazir et al v. Rumsfeld et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed November 4, 2008

    1) (“[d]uring the entire time I was at Bagram, I never had a lawyer or anyone advocating on my behalf”). Ultimately, the Court in Boumediene was so unimpressed by the representation offered detainees as part of the CSRT process at Guantánamo, see 128 S. Ct. at 2260, that this procedure added little weight to Respondents’ side of the due process scale. By the same measure, for Petitioner and other Bagram detainees, the lack of any assistance must weigh heavily against Respondents’ due process contentions.

  3. Maqaleh et al v. Rumsfeld et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

    Filed October 16, 2008

    1). Ultimately, the Court in Boumediene was so unimpressed by the representation offered detainees as part of the CSRT process at Guantanamo, see 128 S. Ct. at 2260, that this aspect of the process added little weight to Respondents’ due process side of the scale. For Petitioner and other Bagram detainees, however, the lack of any assistance at all must weigh heavily against Respondents’ due process claim.

  4. Kiyemba et al v. Bush et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re

    Filed August 5, 2008

    In Munaf, the Supreme Court refused to grant the habeas petitioners there the remedy of release, because in that case, “release of any kind would interfere with the sovereign authority of Iraq.” 128 S. Ct. at 2223 (emphasis in original) (quoting Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 529 (1957)). And it is axiomatic that a fundamental incident of sovereignty is the power to control lawful entry into a country, for “every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.”

  5. SALAHI et al v. BUSH et al

    MOTION for Order to Show Cause

    Filed June 10, 2015

    Without those legal materials, a prisoner cannot avail himself of “the privilege of habeas corpus[, which] entitles the prisoner to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to the erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law.” Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 779 (quotation marks omitted). Confiscation of legal materials therefore unreasonably curtails the right of access to the courts, see, e.g., Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (confiscation of legal materials from prisoners constitutes unreasonable interference with access to courts), and habeas is the appropriate remedy, see Aamer, 742 F.3d at 1036 (“Where the specific detention abridges federally protected interests—by . . . impeding his access to the courts, and so on—it is an unlawful detention and habeas lies to release the petitioner therefrom.”

  6. Kiyemba et al v. Bush et al

    REPLY re Memorandum in Opposition,

    Filed August 15, 2008

    Case 1:05-cv-01509-UNA Document 153 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 27 of 30 A/72618805.2 23 release.” Munaf, 128 S. Ct. at 2222 (citations omitted). The petitioners in Munaf were held by U.S. forces for the singular purpose of transfer into a foreign sovereign’s criminal justice system.

  7. National Mining Association v. Jackson et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed December 9, 2010

    This Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction, without a doubt, before proceeding to address a request for a motion for a preliminary injunction. Cf. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998) (holding that in all cases Article III standing must be found before reaching the merits); Munaf, 553 U.S. at 690 (noting that “[a] difficult question as to jurisdiction” makes success on the merits “more unlikely”). When resolving a jurisdictional challenge under Federal Rule 12(b)(1), the Court is not limited to the allegations contained in the complaint and is not required to accept all facts alleged therein as true, if they paint an incomplete picture.

  8. Norair Engineering Corp. v. District of Columbia Water And Sewer Authority

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Norair's Motion for Injunctive Relief

    Filed October 7, 2016

    This is fatal to Norair’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Munaf, 553 U.S. at 690 (success on merits is a necessary precondition of injunctive relief). Second, Norair cannot show that any harm it suffered is “irreparable.”

  9. Flore-Pichinte et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) et al

    Memorandum on jurisdiction re MOTION to Stay

    Filed December 3, 2015

    The court there held that the right of an alien under the de facto sovereignty of the United States to potentially assert constitutional claims assuming the Suspension Clause applied was based on “objective factors and practical concerns” rather than “formalism.” 553 U.S. at 764. Accordingly, in determining the constitutional rights of aliens under the de facto or de jure sovereignty of the United States, the Court applies a “functional approach” rather than a bright- line rule.

  10. Tilton et al v. Securities and Exchange Commission

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . . Document

    Filed April 30, 2015

    Where, as here, there are serious questions as to the Court’s jurisdiction, it is “more unlikely” that the plaintiff can establish a “‘likelihood of success on the merits.’” Munaf, 553 U.S. at 690. Finally, “[w]henever a request for a preliminary injunction implicates public interests, a court should give some consideration to the balance of such interests.”