Cleaning Up "The Mess": The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Burden of Proof in the Guantanamo Habeas Cases

By Payne, William R. | Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 2013 | Go to article overview

Cleaning Up "The Mess": The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Burden of Proof in the Guantanamo Habeas Cases


Payne, William R., Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy


INTRODUCTION

Since Boumediene v. Bush, (1) the United States District Court and Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have been thrust into an extraordinary lawmaking exercise with broad national security implications as they adjudicate the habeas petitions of the detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. These courts have been tasked not only with applying the law to the facts of each individual detainee's case, but also with developing the substantive and procedural rules governing military detention with little guidance from either the Supreme Court or Congress. Numerous scholars have criticized the court of appeals, accusing the court--and some judges in particular--of attempting to undermine the right to judicial review recognized in Boumediene and suggesting that the court of appeals is unwilling to rule in favor any detainee. (2)

This Note examines the development of the burden of proof in the Guantanamo habeas cases, beginning with an examination of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court and Congress and continuing with an analysis of the case law developed thus far by the D.C. Circuit on the issue. What emerges is a very different view of the court of appeals's jurisprudence than the prevailing critical view. Throughout this lawmaking process, the Supreme Court and Congress have wrongly avoided addressing the burden of proof (and other procedural issues) head-on, instead deferring to the D.C. Circuit. Furthermore, the Obama Administration's litigation strategy on the issue has proved remarkably irresponsible, unwisely encouraging the adoption of a high burden of proof with unforeseen negative consequences, barely avoiding sacrificing an important legal means of incapacitating detainees by sheer luck, and inappropriately shifting its institutional responsibility to the D.C. Circuit. Saddled with the undue burden of developing the standard, the court of appeals's jurisprudence on the matter manages to accommodate both maximum deference to the government in wartime and the protections for the detainees required by the Supreme Court, illustrating admirable efforts to clean up part of what one of its judges has referred to as the "Guantanamo Mess." (3)

I. CREATING THE PROBLEM: THE SUPREME COURT OPENS THE D.C. CIRCUIT TO HABEAS ACTIONS BY GUANTANAMO DETAINEES BUT PROVIDES NO HELPFUL GUIDANCE

The Supreme Court first grappled with the substantive law of military detention in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, (4) its first detainee habeas case after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In Hamdi, the Supreme Court sanctioned the government's authority to hold enemy combatants in military detention. (5) In response to the petitioner's due process claims, (6) Justice O'Connor, writing for the controlling plurality, (7) determined that the detainee petitioner "must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decision-maker." (8) The plurality opinion also noted, though, that the "exigencies of the circumstances" allowed for "proceedings [to] be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." (9) In addition to approving procedural modifications such as the admission of hearsay evidence, (10) the opinion specifically contemplated a "burden-shifting scheme," under which "once the Government puts forth credible evidence ... the onus could shift to the petitioner to rebut that evidence with more persuasive evidence." (11) The plurality allowed such procedural modifications to standard habeas proceedings because "process of this sort would sufficiently address the 'risk of an erroneous deprivation' of a detainee's liberty interest while eliminating certain procedures that have questionable additional value in light of the burden on the Government." (12) In devising specific rules, the Court commanded lower courts to adhere to the same balancing philosophy, to "pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Cleaning Up "The Mess": The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Burden of Proof in the Guantanamo Habeas Cases
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.