Transcript

CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument now in number 03-334, Shafiq Rasul v. George W. Bush and a companion case.

Mr. Gibbons.

MR. JOHN J. GIBBONS: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:

What's at stake in this case is the authority of the federal courts to uphold the rule of law.

Respondents asserts that their actions are absolutely immune from judicial examination whenever they elect to detain foreign nationals outside our borders.

Under this theory, neither the length of the detention, the conditions of their confinement, nor the fact that they have been wrongfully detained makes the slightest difference.

Respondents would create a lawless enclave, insulating the Executive Branch from any judicial scrutiny now or in the future.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Mr. Gibbons, I understand that your client has been detained approximately two years.

MR. GIBBONS: That's correct, Your Honor.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Ah, supposing they'd only be detained six months, how much would that weaken your case?

MR. GIBBONS: It wouldn't weaken it at all, because as we'll -- I'll get into in the argument, the case depends on compliance with provisions of a binding treaty, which requires a prompt determination of their status.

JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: So they would have had a habeas corpus entitlement in your view within weeks after their -- after their detention?

MR. GIBBONS: They would have had an entitlement to the process specified in the Geneva convention, and if they had that process.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Did they have that right when they were in Afghanistan?

MR. GIBBONS: They allege not, and on this record you have to assume that, as did the Court of Appeals.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: But now in Johnson v. Eisentrager we said that the Geneva Convention was -- did not confer a private right of action.

MR. GIBBONS: Your Honor, the question of the private right of action really is not presented in this case. We're not asking to apply a private right of action from the Geneva Convention or any other treaty.

What we're saying is that the cause of action is created by the Habeas Corpus Statute, and by the Administrative Procedure Act.

The treaty provides a rule of decision, not a cause of action.

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: Well, I guess at least the question presented is just whether the federal court has jurisdiction under the habeas statute, Section 2241. Is that right?

MR. GIBBONS: That's correct.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: And you don't raise the issue of any potential jurisdiction on the basis of Cons -- the Constitution alone?

MR. GIBBONS: Well --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: We're here debating the jurisdiction under the habeas statute. Is that right?

MR. GIBBONS: That -- That's correct, Justice O'Connor. As a matter of fact --

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: What about 1331? I -- I thought --

MR. GIBBONS: It doesn't depend on section 1331, although the Administrative Procedure Act claim does depend on section 1331.

JUSTICE SCALIA: That's what I'm asking. Is that here or not? You mentioned the APA claim. I thought you --

MR. GIBBONS: Yes.

JUSTICE SCALIA: -- were still asserting that. Are you not?

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, I'm asserting that, and that --

JUSTICE SCALIA: So it isn't just habeas then, it's also 13--

MR. GIBBONS: That does -- Your -- Justice Scalia, it does depend on Section 1331.

JUSTICE SCALIA: So we have two things --

MR. GIBBONS: Yes.

JUSTICE SCALIA: The habeas statute and 1331.

MR. GIBBONS: Yes. Now --

JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: But you still win if you win under the habeas statute.

MR. GIBBONS: Oh, absolutely.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Yes. You don't need both.

MR. GIBBONS: No, we don't. Now, if you look at the Court of Appeals ruling in this case, the Court of Appeals assumed that these people were friendly aliens, assumed that they had never been members of any armed forces, and had never carried out any belligerent activity against the United States.

Assumed that they had never had the hearing required by the Geneva Convention to determine whether or not in fact they were civilians who should have been repatriated.

What the Court of Appeals held was, and it's on page 1141 of the Court's opinion, if the Constitution does not entitle the detainees to due process, and it does not, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of our courts to test the constitutionality or legality of restraints on their liberty.

Thus the Court of Appeals assumed that the case -- that the -- the result turned on the absence of a constitutional right. And that simply misreads the habeas corpus statute.

Section -- Section 2241(c)(1), which is carried forward in virtually identical language from Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 antedated the Bill of Rights.

All it required -- all it has ever required -- is federal custody simpliciter. And that gives habeas corpus jurisdiction.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but other than producing the person before the court so that the system is satisfied that we know where the person is, surely you have to go beyond that and assert some sort of right. And you --

MR. GIBBONS: Of course.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You say that Geneva convention is -- is really not the basis for the cause of action, which I agree, so where do we go after that? So he's here in front of the court, now what?

MR. GIBBONS: Your Honor, the Geneva Convention is the supreme law of the land. That's what the Constitution says about treaties.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: But it may not be self-executing. That's the problem, I guess, and the indications aren't --

MR. GIBBONS: You're -- Your Honor --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Forgetting the Geneva Convention, what happens when the person comes before the court? Do you prevail and they're is a writ of habeas corpus? He comes here and the judge says, "Now what am I supposed to do?"

MR. GIBBONS: What the judge is supposed to do is determine, first, whether or not the government's response that the detention is legal is in fact an adequate response.

Now the government in this case probably would respond, "We don't have to give the hearings required by the Geneva convention."

But if you are going to treat a binding United States treaty as the supreme law of the land, that is not an adequate answer. Now this question of, "is the treaty self-executing or not self-executing," I suggest, is a straw man.

Since 1813, if a treaty provides a rule of decision, and something else provides a cause of action, the treaty nevertheless provides the rule of decision.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: But -- but Johnson said, quite specifically, that the Geneva Convention was not available to the petitioners in that case because it did not confer any right of action.

MR. GIBBONS: I -- Well, Your Honor, I -- I think the latter part of your sentence is probably an over-reading of Johnson.

In Johnson, which I suggest is clearly distinguishable from this case, there were three critical facts.

One was that they were admitted enemy aliens. Our petitioners plead that they're not.

The other was that they had a hearing before a military tribunal, which comported with federal legislation and with the extant rules of international law, and our petitioners have had no such hearing.

JUSTICE STEPHEN G. BREYER: But I -- I take it your --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: If you -- if your client here had been given the review that has been described to us in the government's brief, by military authorities to determine whether these people are indeed being held as enemy combatants, would you be here if you knew that that review had been provided?

MR. GIBBONS: We would not be. What we're seeking is the review provided by --

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how that affects --

JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: -- depend on what the review shows? And I bet you'd allege that your clients were not enemy aliens. If it showed they were tourists that were just picked up by mistake, would you be here or would you not be here?

MR. GIBBONS: If -- if they were detained after a hearing determined that they were civilian detainees, who under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention should be repatriated, we would be here.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how those merits questions go to the issue of jurisdiction of the court. It may well be that if those factors you mentioned were changed, you'd be entitled to judgment here, even though the plaintiffs in Eisentrager were not entitled to judgment.

But we're not talking about the merits right now, we're talking about jurisdiction. Certainly jurisdiction doesn't turn on the merits, whether you were an enemy alien or not.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, it -- I suggest that a fair reading of Eisentrager is that that did turn on the merits, and --

JUSTICE SOUTER: No, but I thought your -- may I ask you this, because I'm having the same trouble Justice Scalia is having.

I thought your principle argument on the basis of Eisentrager was that it cannot stand for the proposition that there is no jurisdiction, because in fact, in Eisentrager, there was enough mention of matters on the merits so that it was clear that's what was driving the ultimate resolution in Eisentrager, and it cannot stand for the proposition that a court cannot even inquire.

And the only issue we've got is whether, under the habeas statute, the court can even inquire. Do I misunderstand your position?

MR. GIBBONS: No, you do not --

JUSTICE SOUTER: Ok.

MR. GIBBONS: -- Justice Souter. It's our position that Eisentrager was a decision on the merits.

As a matter of fact, the Court says that they -- petitioners were extended the same preliminary hearing as to (inaudible)the application that was extended in Quirin, Yamashita, and Hirota v. McArthur, all of which were decisions on the merits.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: But in several different places, Mr. Gibbons, in Eisentrager, the court says, we're talking about the habeas statute. And we're saying that these petitioners are not entitled to Habeas.

MR. GIBBONS: Well they are not -- let me be clear about that. The result on the merits in Eisentrager is perfectly correct. What the court did in Eisentrager was apply the scope of review on Habeas Corpus, which was standard at that time.

If the military tribunal had lawful jurisdiction, that ended the Habeas inquiry.

JUSTICE STEVENS: Well there's another problem with that time. That case was decided when Ahrens v. Clark was the statement of the law. So there's no statuatory basis for jurisdiction there. And the issue is whether the constitution itself provided jurisdiction, but of course all that's changed now.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, Your Honor, in both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, made it clear that they disapproved.

They were not adopting the ruling of the district court based on Ahrens v Clark. Now, of course, in any event, that does not go to subject matter jurisdiction. That's a rule 12B2 issue of in personum jurisdiction. Whether a proper respondant is before the court. In Eisentrager, the court assumes --

JUSTICE STEVENS: Question of whether the territorial jurisdiction privision. There was no territorial jurisdiction if they were outside the district under the ruling in Ahrens against Clark.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, well there is --

JUSTICE STEVENS: Which means they had to rely on the Constitution to support jurisdiction which in turn means that once they overruled Ahrens v Clark, which they did, there's now a statuatory basis for jurisdiction that did not then exist.

MR. GIBBONS: No, uh, Your Honor, respectfully, I don't think you can fairly read Justice Jackson's opinion as adopting the Ahrens v Clark position.

JUSTICE STEVENS: No, but Ahrens v Clark was the law at the time of that decision, and it was subsequently overruled. So that that case was decided when the legal climate was different than has been since Ahrens against Clark was overruled.

MR. GIBBONS: In any event.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: (inaudible)

MR. GIBBONS: In any event, there's no question that the Ahrens v Clark rule does not apply today. These respondants are the proper respondants.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Of course you could question of how much it doesn't apply. Whether it doesn't apply only when there is at least, uh, clearer statuatory jurisdiction in one, in one federal court. So it's almost a venue call.

Uh, it isn't clear that it has been overruled when there is no statuatory jurisdiction in any federal court. That's that's certainly in question.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, Your Honor, as to they absence of jurisdiction 2241(c)(1), could not be plainer. It's been plain for 215 years. If there is federal detention and there is a proper respondant before the court, as there is, there is habeas corpus jurisdiction. I don't see any even ambiguity in that statute.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: What would you do if you have a lawful combatant in a declared war, and the combatant, an enemy of the United States, is, uh, captured and detained. Habeas?

MR. GIBBONS: Habeas? You mean on the battlefield? Absolutely not.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, we'll take it on the battlefield.

MR. GIBBONS: No

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And then a week later, ten miles away and then six months later, a thousand miles away.

MR. GIBBONS: In a zone of active military operations, or in an occupied area under martial law, Habeas Corpus jurisdiction has never extended --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose it's Guantanamo.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, uh, the, uh --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: The declared war and a lawful combatant.

MR. GIBBONS: Declared war and someone who has been determined to be a combatant in accordance with Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, an application for a writ of habeas corpus in those circumstances would on, under rule 12-B6, be summarily dismissed.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It goes to the merits.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: The Geneva Convention again. I just have to assume your case depends on the Geneva Convention. It's not self-executing.

MR. GIBBONS: It depends on the Geneva Convention and on the military regulations duly adopted and binding on the military forces of the United States.

JUSTICE SOUTER: But isn't that the merits case that you're talking about? I mean, your jurisdictional argument doesn't depend, as I understand it, on military regulations or the Geneva Convention. It depends on the statute.

MR. GIBBONS: No, it does not.

JUSTICE SOUTER: If you get into court.

MR. GIBBONS: That's right.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Your clients may raise Geneva Convention and all sorts of things. But, that's not what your case here is dependant on.

MR. GIBBONS: No, our position is that the Habeas Corpus statute has meant what it said, since 1789.

JUSTICE BREYER: But you have to think down the road. Is there an alternative to the Geneva Convention? That is, on the substantive claim I was also thinking, and here I want your view on it, that if you have, that if they get in the door, and now they have a claim that they are being held without a competent tribunal assessing it, you get to your route as well, by saying, that the part about the 5th Amendment in Eisentrager, is, in effect, overruled by Reid v Covert.

And, in fact, you follow Harlan, and by following Harlan you apply some kind of due process and the Geneva Convention comes in to inform the content of that due process. Now, is there an argument there or not?

MR. GIBBONS: There certainly is, Your Honor. But, uh, since.

JUSTICE BREYER: You're not simply being polite. I want -- I want to --

MR. GIBBONS: No, I have more to say about it.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: But you do have the impediment, Mr. Gibbons, that the DC Circuit said it decided the merits as well as jurisdiction, so I think Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy were asking you before, well if you prevail on jurisdiction, under that opinion, don't you go out the door immediately because the DC Circuit said, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned: Non-resident aliens have no due process rights.

MR. GIBBONS: As far as the Constitution is concerned, that's what the District of Columbia Circuit said. Now, as to whether or not that's right, uh.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But that's not --

MR. GIBBONS: First of all --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: As I take it, we asked you to address only the bare jurisdictional question.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, the bare jurisdictional question, depends on federal custody simplicitor. And then the court goes on to decide, is there any legal basis for the government's response to the writ.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Can I, can I ask Mr. Gibbons, if the jurisdictional question rests on the habeas statute simplicitor without reference to the Geneva Convention, or any of the other merits points that you've been raising, How then do you answer Justice Kennedy's question?

If the merits are out and it doesn't matter whether you are a combatant or a non-combatant, is there jurisdiction when somebody is caputured on the field of battle and held immediately on the field of battle? Why wouldn't there be jurisdiction then? The only answers you give are merits answers. Not jurisdictional answers.

MR. GIBBONS: Your Honor, what I'm suggesting is that whether you call it jurisdiction or whether you call it the merits, in the battlefield situation is going to go out under rule 12. In any event.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: But that's quite different. I mean, all we're theoretically talking about here is jurisdiction. And the idea that you know, you have Justice Kennedy's example: A lawfull combatant, a declaired war, detained at Guantanamo maybe two months after it happened.

An action is brought here, in the District of Columbia for Habeas Corpus and what does a judge say when he considers that sort of petition.

MR. GIBBONS: When he sees that petition he should dismiss it summarily, and wether he dismisses it under 12b1 or 12b6 it won't take him any more time.

Habeas Corpus, as the historians breif and others among the amici point out, has never run to the battle field as a matter of habeas corpus common law, and it is, afterall a common law writ, it has never run to any place except where the sovereign issuing writ has some undisputed control.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, suppose there is Guantanamo. You still have to sumarily dismiss under the hypothetical, right?

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, Justice Kennedy. And, uh, the Court of Appeals did rely on some mystical ultimate sovereignty of Cuba over, as we navy types call it Git-mo, uh, treating the navy base there as a no law zone.

Now, Guantanamo Navy Base, as I can attest from my year of personal experience, is under complete United States control and has been for a century.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: We don't need your personal expirence, that's what it says in the treaty. It says complete jurisdiction.

MR. GIBBONS: That's exactly right it says in the lease.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Control.

MR. GIBBONS: Yes.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Now it also says, it also says Cuba retains sovereignty.

MR. GIBBONS: It does not say that. It says that if the United States decides to surrender the perpetual lease, Cuba has ultimate sovereignty, whatever that means. Now, for lawyers and judges, dealing with the word sovereignty -- it dosn't self define.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Excuse me, does it say that Cuba has ultimate soverinty only if the United States decides to surrender?

MR. GIBBONS: Yes.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where would that be? I didn't realize that was there.

MR. GIBBONS: Uh, well, perhaps one of my colleauges can find that, that, that language in the appendix.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Why don't you go ahead.

MR. GIBBONS: Uh, for example, if one of the detainees here asaulted another detainee in Guantanamo, there's no question they'd be prosecuted under American law because no other law applies there.

Cuban law dosn't apply there. Now, if the test is sovereignty, that term must be given some rational meaning by judges.

Uh, respondents concede that habeas corpus would extend to citizen detainees in Guantanamo, that would be no interference with Cuban sovereignty, and extending habeas corpus to non-citizens there is no more an interference to Cuban sovereignty.

If there isn't sovereignty if there isn't sovereignty over that base, where no law applies, legislative, judicial, or otherwise, uh, the term has no meaning.

Sovereignty, for leagal purposes, must at least mean that some political organization has a monopoly on sanctions in that defined geographic area.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Gibbons, uh, I am quoting from page eight from the Governmnent's brief, which I assume is an accurate quote of the treaty, it dosn't just say that Cuba has sovereignty if we give up the lease.

It says that the United States, this is the treaty, recognizes the continuence of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba, over the leased area. Now I take that to mean that they are sovereign even during the term of the lease.

Now you may it's artifical, but uh, there it is.

MR. GIBBONS: I -- I --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's the law of the land, as you say.

MR. GIBBONS: I -- I misspoke Justice Scalia by omitting the reference to continuing -- but it doesn't make any difference. That continuing sovereignty -- Queen Elizabeth is the nominal sovereign of Canada. That doesn't determine whether or not Canadian courts can grant a writ of habeas corpus.

She's also the nominal sovereign of Australia.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't think sovereignty is being used in the same sense.

MR. GIBBONS: Well thats --

JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean, it would be a good point if you -- if you said that England was sovereign over Canada, and -- and I don't think anybody would say that.

MR. GIBBONS: But it -- it's -- the reference in the lease meant that Cuban law somehow applied in the United States navy base in Guantanamo bay, that would be one thing. But Cuban law has never had any application inside that base.

A -- A stamp with Fidel Castro's picture on it wouldn't get a letter off the base.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Gibbons --

JUSTICE SCALIA: We couldn't sublease, could we? We couldn't sublease Gitmo, and we couldn't sell any of Git-mo to a foreign country, could we? Why not?

MR. GIBBONS: There are all sorts --

JUSTICE SCALIA: Because Cuba is sovereign.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, there are all sorts of treaties in which the United States -- or perhaps leases in other respects -- in which the United States knew its own authority.

But that doesn't mean that the United States has surrendered its sovereignty.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Is it like a federal enclave within a state? I was trying to think of anything that might be -- that might resemble this relationship of the United States to a territory inside another territory.

MR. GIBBONS: Guantanamo is to some extent unique. One of the amicus briefs that surveyed the United States navy bases elsewhere points out that this is the only base, for example, where the United States has not entered into a status of force -- forces agreement.

It's not at all clear that we have exclusive jurisdiction -- civil jurisdiction -- in any of our other enclaves in foreign countries. But we have exclusive jurisdiction and control over civil law in Guantanamo, and have had for a century.

The -- so it's -- it's so totally artificial to say that, because of this provision in the lease, the executive branch can create a no-law zone where it is not accountable to any judiciary, anywhere.

Now, in some other places, where the United States has a base, there may be other civil authority that can demand an accounting. But what the Executive Branch is saying here is, We don't have to account to anyone anywhere.

Justice Breyer, you asked me a question before and someone else, as not unusual, interrupted me before I answered you, and to tell you the truth I don't remember your question at this point.

JUSTICE BREYER: I can explore it with the Solicitor General possibly.

MR. GIBBONS: Well -- Your Honor, I was also asked a question about whether or not aliens had any constitutional rights. In Verdugo, speaking for four members of the Court at least, Mr. Chief Justice, you said that Eisentrager stood for the proposition --

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: I think I was speaking for five. I think Justice Kennedy joined the opinion.

MR. GIBBONS: Well, he did, but he wrote separately, I think, and at least cast some doubt on whether or not he agreed with your -- your position that there is no Fifth Amendment right for an alien outside the United States.

Now, of course, that reading of Eisentrager assumes that it was a decision on the merits and not a jurisdiction decision.

But be that as it may, our position, and again it's not necessary for reversal in this case, and perhaps should not even be addressed because if you could avoid a constitutional decision by making a statutory decision. But our position is that that statement in Verdugo is overbroad.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Thank you Mr. Gibbons.

General Olson, we'll hear from you.

SOLICITOR GENERAL THEODORE B. OLSON: Mr. Cheif Justice, and may it please the court:

The United States is at war. Over 10,000 American troops are in Afghanistan today in response to a virtually unanimous Congressional declaration of an unusual and extraordinarily, extraordinary threat to our national security.

In an authorization to the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States.

It is in that context that petitioners ask this court to assert jurisdiction that is not authorized by Congress, does not arise from the Constitution, has never been exercised buy this court.

JUSTICE STEVENS: Mr. Olson, supposing the war has ended, could you continue that detain these people on Guantanamo, would there then be jurisdiction?

GENERAL OLSON: We believe that there would not be jurisdiction.

JUSTICE STEVENS: The existence of the war is really irrelevant to the legal issue.

GENERAL OLSON: It is, it is not irrelevant because it is in this context that that question is raised and I would, the the question, the case of Johnson v. Eisentrager which we have discussed here -- even the dissent in that case said that it would be fantastic to assume that habeas corpus jurisdiction would exist in the time of war.

So that that case is not --

JUSTICE STEVENS: No, but your your position does not depend on the existence of a war.

GENERAL OLSON: It doesn't depend upon that, Justice Stevens, but it's even more forceful and more compelling because all of the justices in the Eisentreiger case would have held that there was no jurisdiction on the --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: What if one of the plaintiffs were an American citizen here, but being held in Guantanamo. Jurisdiction under habeas statute?

GENERAL OLSON: We would acknowledge jurisdiction. The Court has never --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: Excuse me?

GENERAL OLSON: We would acknowledge that there would be jurisdiction --

JUSTICE BREYER: Why?

GENERAL OLSON: -- under the habeas corpus statute -- for the reasons that are explained in Eisentrager itself: that citizenship is the foundation for a relationship between the nation and the individual and a foundation for --

JUSTICE STEVENS: Is that sufficient to give us jurisdiction over Guantanamo? It's another sovereign.

GENERAL OLSON: With respect to the individual. We would still argue --

JUSTICE STEVENS: What if the American citizen was in the middle of the battlefield in Iraq?

GENERAL OLSON: We would still argue that -- that the jurisdiction under the habeas statute would not extend under these circumstances to a wartime situation, Justice Stevens, but that the -- the -- what the Eisentrager Court said: that there is enhanced respect with respect to the power of the Court under the habeas corpus jurisdiction with respect to questions involving citizenship.

But what was unquestionable with respect to that case is that an alien, who had never had any relationship to the United States, and who was being held as the result of a combat situation, or a war situation, in a foreign jurisdiction, there was no jurisdiction under the habeas statute.

JUSTICE BREYER: Well it was clear that there was no relief. What do you say to Mr. Gibbons position that because, in fact, they did discuss the merits, that case cannot really be taken as authority for the prop -- leaving Ahrens and Braden aside -- that the case cannot be taken as authority for the proposition that there is no jurisdiction in the sense of allowing the person through the door to make whatever claim the person wants to make.

What is your response?

GENERAL OLSON: Our response to that is, throughout the decision in Eisentrager the Court referred to the question of jurisdiction --

JUSTICE BREYER: Oh, it did -- I'm really not asking a question about the, frankly about the Court's terminology, I'm asking about the holding in the case.

And their argument is, you can't say it held anything more than that there was no relief at the end of the road.

GENERAL OLSON: It held that there was no relief at the end of the road, because the ultimate question, to use the words of the Court, the ultimate question is jurisdiction. The Court over and over again said that we are deciding how far the habeas statute reaches.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: General Olson, would you look at page 777 of the Johnson v. Eisentrager opinion, and it says, and this is a hard opinion to fathom, but it does say, we are here confronted with, and there's a whole list of things.

And one of them is -- is an enemy alien, and another is, was tried and convicted by a military commission sitting outside the United States.

Why would the Court think it necessary to say this is what we're confronted in this case, which makes it worlds different from our case, where there has been no trial and conviction, where these people are saying, and we must accept for the moment that it's true, that they are innocent, that they're not combatants of any kind?

GENERAL OLSON: Well, those were unquestionably facts that related to the case -- that related to the facts that came to the Court. But in the very next paragraph, the Court goes on to say that we have pointed out that the privelege of litigation has been extended to aliens whether friendly or enemy.

That -- that specifically addresses one of the points you mentioned, only because permitting their presence in the country implied protection.

And the court went on to say, no such basis can be invoked here, for these prisoners at no relevant time were within any territory over which the United States is sovereign, and the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial, and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

And earlier in that --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Their trial and their punishment. This is a compeleted episode. This is a very under -- decision to understand, I would say it is at least ambiguous.

GENERAL OLSON: It seems to me -- It seems to me that those statements all have to be read in the context -- the context of the Court saying, the ultimate question is jurisdiction.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: But it was so unnecessary to give that list that appears on page 777.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, I suspect that there are many decisions of this Court where the -- when the Court is dealing with the facts of a specific case, especially in the context of a court of appeals decision, if -- if the Court were to turn to the briefs that were written before to present the issue in this Court, the only -- the question presented in this case in this Court in Eisentrager was the habe -- the jurisdiction under the habeas statute.

But the case arose in the context --

JUSTICE STEVENS: Was it really just -- was it really under the habeas statute, or under the constitution?

GENERAL OLSON: It was --

JUSTICE STEVENS: If the views of the dissenters in Ahrens against Clarke were the law at that time, as they perhaps are now, then there would have been statutory jurisdiction, which was not present in that at that time.

GENERAL OLSON: But the Court was specifically focusing on the jurisdictional incidents attached to the condition of the individual --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: But the Eisentrager Court never once mentioned the statute -- the habeas statute in it's opinion.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, it --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: What it seemed to do was to reach the merits and say, at the end of the day, these people have no rights. They've had a trial under the military tribunal, and they have no rights that could be granted at the end of the day.

And no mention of the habeas statute.

GENERAL OLSON: The Court specifically did say -- they didn't mention the statute, Justice O'Connor, but the statute is mentioned throughout the briefs, and the government's brief, when it says, what's the statute at issue, the habeas corpus statute and within its territory the language of part A of -- the statute that exists today is the same statute that the Eisentrager Court was considering --

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, the briefs may have mentioned it, but wasn't the problem that Eisentrager had to confront the problem created by Ahrens, construing respective jurisdiction, and therefore the only way there could be habeas jurisdiction in Eisentrager was if due process demanded it.

And the Court went on to say, well, there are various reasons to say why there's no ultimate due process entitlement, and (inaudible) due process does not demand entertainment of jurisdiction.

After Braden that argument is gone. Why, therefore, is Eisentrager not undercut to the point where it's not further authority on the jurisdictional point?

GENERAL OLSON: Well, it seems to me -- again, the entire opinion has to be taken in context. The Court did specifically say that there is no statutory authority. It didn't say -- it didn't identify by number a provision of the code, but specifically said no statutory authority.

JUSTICE BREYER: Sure, it was a post --

JUSTICE STEVENS: -- that was because Ahrens was then the law. And that was very clear in the Court of Appeals opinion. They rested their decision solely on the Constitution.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, Justice Stevens I submit that in the context of the case, in the context of the way the dissent understood it as well as the majority understood it --

JUSTICE STEVENS: (indecipherable) -- the case was when the majority view in Ahrens was the law, and that is no longer the law.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, we would submit that the Ahrens v. -- over -- partial overruling, I think that's been pointed out before, of Ahrens has no effect on the vitality of the Eisentrager case.

The Court made clear that it was deciding -- and everyone -- the reason I mention the briefs is the context in which the case was presented to the Court, and argued to the Court, and the -- the decision that was made by the majority in the Court, focusing on the identify of the petitioner, whether alien or friendly --

Justice Black in his dissenting opinion says this decision would apply to whether someone was hostile or not and -- and the entire context of the case, Justice Stevens, seems to me --

JUSTICE STEVENS: Well, the context of the case was -- it was decided at the time when Ahrens against Clarke was the law, and if the dissenting opinion in Ahrens v. Clark had been the law, it would have been decided differently.

GENERAL OLSON: Well it seems to me that a fair reading of the case goes much further than that because the Court was not focusing on that, it didn't specify that it was making its decision on that basis.

It did specify over and over again, and the dissent referred to this as well, that is was focusing on the fact that the individuals bringing the petition, had no sufficient context with the United States. That's in part why the Court --

JUSTICE STEVENS: That was a complete response to an argument resting entirely on the Constitution.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Did it cite Ahrens?

GENERAL OLSON: It did not.

JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't recall that it did.

GENERAL OLSON: I don't recall that it did --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's rather extraordinary if it -- if it was relying on that being the issue.

GENERAL OLSON: -- the district court relied upon that decision. The Court of Appeals went much further with respect to finding -- in fact, the Court -- and this Court, Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court in this case, specifically points out that the Court of Appeals, went back to something it called fundamentals because it couldn't find any authority in either the statute or the Constitution.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Didn't the Johnson opinion also say, we don't have to concern ourselves here with the proper custodian, we kind of finessed that point?

GENERAL OLSON: I believe that that's a correct characterization.

The other portion of the decision that it seems to me important to recognize, is that this is a decision, that was widely perceived and has been consistently perceived as a definition of the scope of the habeas statute.

Going back to the early 1800s, this Court decided that the extent of habeas jurisdiction arose from the statute, not from the common law.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: That gets me back to your statement that if this been a citizen, held in Guantanamo, that habeas would be available. But, the statute doesn't talk about citizens. It says prisoners held under the authority of the United States.

Now, if, the citizen, can say that he is a prisoner held under the authority of the United States in Guantanamo, why couldn't a non-citizen under the statute say the same thing?

GENERAL OLSON: I think, Justice Kennedy, that the answer to that, in the first place, we are not saying that there necessarily would be jurisdiction there, but we are saying that the Court would go further with respect to that because, this is also in Eisenstrager, a number of this Court's decisions, that the Court will find more protections for citizens as a result of the relationship going back --

JUSTICE BREYER: No, but the only way you can do it --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: I didn't mean to misconstrue it, or misstate it, but I thought you had said at the outset, that if this had been a citizen of the United States, held in Guantanomo there would be habeas corpus.

GENERAL OLSON: We are saying that we would not be contesting it, Justice Kennedy, and the Court will be dealing with other issues involved --

JUSTICE STEVENS: You don't have to contest the jurisdictional objection; if there's no jurisdiction, there's no jurisdiction. Whether you contest it or not.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, What I guess, the only way I can answer this Justice Stevens, is say that what the Court seemed to say, not only in the majority opinion, but in the dissenting opinion, that more rights would be given to citizens --

JUSTICE SOUTER: But there are no rights that can be recognized unless there is jurisdiction in the first place. And if the Court is going to make good on what you have just said it said, it's got to do so presupposing jurisdiction.

So if, you are going to rely upon those statements, don't you necessarily have to concede jurisdiction.

GENERAL OLSON: I don't --

JUSTICE SOUTER: With respect to the citizen.

Doesn't make any difference if they've got lots of rights, if there's no jurisdiction to get into a court to enforce them.

GENERAL OLSON: I think that the answer is, that it does not necessarily follow, the Court has not reached that decision yet, and that's something that is not before the Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Certainly, the argument is available, that in that situation, the Constitution requires jurisdiction.

The Constitution requires that an American citizen, who has the protection of the Constitution, has some manner, of vindicating his rights under the Constitution, that would be the argument.

GENERAL OLSON: I agree with that, Justice Scalia. And this court has said again and again --

JUSTICE SCALIA: And that was part of the argument in Eisenstrager

GENERAL OLSON: And in that case the Court specifically said that the 5th amendment did not extend, to the petitioners in that case, the Court has said that again in the Verdugo case in terms of the 4th amendment.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Is that your answer to Justice Kennedy, that there would be jurisdiction because due process would require it for citizens, but there would not be statutory jurisdiction in the case of a citizen at Guantanamo.

GENERAL OLSON: I think it would be an interpretation. And what this Court is doing is interpreting the statute, because the habeas corpus statute defines the extent to which rights --

JUSTICE SOUTER: I know, but what's the position, I mean, I want to know what the position of the United States is, for the same reason Justice Kennedy does.

GENERAL OLSON: Our answer to that question, Justice Souter, is that citizens of the United States because of their Constitutional circumstances, may have greater rights with respect to the scope and reach of the habeas statute, as the Court has or would interpret it.

That case has never come before this Court. And it's important to emphasize that.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You go outside the statutory language for your case that's in front of us?

GENERAL OLSON: Excuse me, Justice Kennedy --

JUSTICE KENNEDY: You're going outside of the statutory language to resolve both the hypothetical case and the case in front of us. This is a prisoner and he's detained under the authority of the United States.

GENERAL OLSON: And this Court, construed those provisions in the Eisentrager case, and determined that the statute did not reach aliens, that did have no contact with the United States, and were held in a foreign jurisdiction, outside the sovereignty of the United States.

JUSTICE STEVENS: With all due respect General Olson, it did not construe the statute, it assumed the statute was inapplicable and concluded that the Constitution was not a substitute for the statute.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, Justice Stevens, I respectfully disagree. I think the Court was construing the statute not to be applicable. Then it went on, because the Court of Appeals had addressed the constitutional --

JUSTICE STEVENS: There's not a word in the opinion that supports that.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, I respectfully disagree. The Court does say we don't find any authority in the statute, we don't find any authority in the Constitution. We will not go to so-called fundamentals, to find it someplace else, that is consistent to what this Court has --

JUSTICE BREYER: It's obvious that there's language in Eisentrager that supports you. Obvious to me. But, you've just heard that judges don't always distinguish between 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), not even in this Court.

At least we don't always get it right. And, there's also language, that you've heard, that's against you. I think there's some in there.

So, what I'm thinking now, assuming that it's very hard to interpret Eisentrager, is that if we go with you, it has the virtue of clarity, the clear rule. Not a citizen, outside the United States, you don't get your foot in the door.

But against you, is that same fact, that seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches, that the Executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check. That's problem 1.

Problem 2 is that we have several hundred years of British history where the cases interpreting habeas corpus said to the contrary anyway, and then we have the possibility of really helping you. With what you are really worried about, which is undue Court interference.

By shaping the substantive right, to deal with all of those problems of the military, that led you, to begin your talk by reminding us of those problems.

So, if it's that choice, why not say, sure, you get your foot in the door, prisoners in Guantanamo, and we'll use the substantive rights to work out something that's protective, but practical.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, Justice Breyer. There are several answers to that. You started with the proposition that there was no check and that the Executive is exerting no check. This is the interpretation of the scope of a habeas statute.

Congress has had 54 years with full awareness of this decision to change it. Indeed, as we point out in our brief, 8 months after the Eisentrager decision a bill was introduced that would have changed that statute HR 218-12, which would specifically have changed that statute to deal with the Eisentrager situation. So, there is a check.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: It could have been just to clarify, General Olson. As you know, the fact that a bill is introduced and not passed, carries very little weight on what law that exists. I mean.

GENERAL OLSON: I understand that. But the bill was -- came eight months after Eisenstrager --

JUSTICE SCALIA: You're not using it to, say what the law was. You're using it to say that there was available and there is available, a perfectly good check on the Executive Branch.

If the people think that this is unfair, if Congress thinks it's unfair, with a stroke of a pen, they can change the habeas statute.

GENERAL OLSON: That's precisely correct. And they had a bill before them, 8 months after the Eisentrager decision which had -- Congress proceeded on it.

Congress has also dealt with the habeas statute in a variety of other ways and has seen fit in no way to change the decision required by this Court with respect to the statute. You've mentioned several hundred years of British history was your second point.

All of those cases or virtually all of those same cases that are been brought up in in the briefs and the amicus briefs today were in the briefs that were before the Eisentrager Court.

JUSTICE BREYER: No I grant you that my question has to assume that Eisentrager is ambiguous and not clearly determined yet. But then on that assumption I am still honesly most worried about the fact that there would be a large category of unchecked and uncheckable actions dealing with the detention of individuals that are being held in a place where America has power to do everything, now that's what's we're in because of Article 3 and the other thing on the opposite side, as i said.

It is possible to tailor the substance to take care of the problems that are worrying you. Those are my two basic points.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, let me get back to it again. Those earlier cases were decided and rejected in the Eisentrager case. Whether there's a check on the Executive, there's a congressional check through the power of legislation, through the power of oversight, through the power of appropriations.

JUSTICE SCALIA: We hold hearings to determine the problems that are bothering you? I mean, we have to take your word for what the problems are. We can't call witnesses and see what the real problems are can we?

In creating this new substantive rule, that we are going to let the Courts create? Congress can do all of that, though, couldn't they?

GENERAL OLSON: Congress could do all of that.

JUSTICE SCALIA:If it wanted to change the habeas statute it could make all sorts of refined modifications.

GENERAL OLSON: Yes it -- yes it --

JUSTICE SCALIA: About issues that we know nothing whatever about. Because we only have lawyers before us, we do not have witnesses. We have no cross-examination, we have no investigative staff.

And we should be the ones, Justice Breyer suggests, to draw up this reticulated system to preserve our military from intervention by the Courts.

GENERAL OLSON: We would agree with that and we would emphasize the point that stepping across that line would be impossible to go back from.

With respect to prisoners in the battlefield and in fact the reply brief refers to the front lines in Iraq, a battle station in Iraq, we're talking here about battlefield decisions.

JUSTICE BREYER: The battlefield -- look, all I mean, by working out the substantive rights, is what Justice Harlan meant and what Justice Kennedy meant in adopting Justice Harlan's view in Verdugo.

And that really derives from the insular cases and I don't think it's something that requires witnesses and reticulated, whatever they are, tax cuts.

GENERAL OLSON: Well to the extent that the Court would say, the Executive you must give a military process, because the petitioner's in this case, demanded in their petition and they would have a right to raise these issues to the extent they haven't backed off in this case, but they demanded in their petition the release, unmonitored communication with counsel, secessation of interrogations.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: If you take what was in their --

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Our doctrine would have to be applied in first instance by 800 different district judges, I take it.

GENERAL OLSON: There is no question that that is exactly right and to the extent that what the petitioners are seeking is to oversee, this is the language in their brief, to oversee the circumstances of detention that is going to vary from case to case --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: General Olson, I've looked at the reply brief, which is the last chance to say what they mean, and they say we're not asking for any of those things.

Certainly not asking to have a lawyer there while these people are being interrogated. They are saying, look we are claiming that our people are innocent. And for purposes of this proceeding, we must assume that.

And all we want is to determine whether they are indeed innocent and it doesn't have to be a Court process.

GENERAL OLSON: This -- but Justice Ginsburg, the relief that I was articulating is what they asked for in the first instance.

If they have jurisdiction in this Court, the next petitioner doesn't have to say, Well I only want a process, and now they're saying they only want an Executive Branch process to review, as we explained.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Go back to the jurisdiction so I understand what your argument is. Would this be entirely different as far as their jurisdiction is concerned if we were talking about, if the people were prisoners on Ellis Island or in Puerto Rico?

GENERAL OLSON: Yes we would. Because we're talking about territorial, sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. What exists in Guantanamo is no different than what existed in Lansburg prison.

JUSTICE SOUTER: Why is that crucial? It's not crucial, I take it, under the respective jurisdiction clause of 2241. Is it crucial under the due process clause?

GENERAL OLSON: It is -- it is the line that this Court drew.

JUSTICE SOUTER: But why is it a good line, I mean what's the --

GENERAL OLSON: Because it is -- it is a line that has the virtue of what Justice Breyer was talking about, of having relative certainty. It is a line that's defined by state to state relationships.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Why is it complete jurisdiction? No one else has jurisdiction, complete jurisdiction, a satisfactory line.

GENERAL OLSON: The complete jurisdiction is a phrase in that lease, the lease specifically says that ultimate sovereignty is Cuba's. It specifically says that the United States --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: How many years have we been operating on Guantanamo with Cuban law never applying?

GENERAL OLSON: With respect, the lease restricts the ability of the United States, to use that property for only Naval or coaling purposes, it specifically says it may not be used for any other purpose.

JUSTICE SCALIA: General Olson, there's a whole other issue in this case which you haven't addressed and I don't think your brief much addressed it. There is also a claim of jurisdiction under section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Would you say at least a few words about what your response to that is? I don't even see the APA cited in your brief.

GENERAL OLSON: Well, it is cited in the brief. We explain that the President is not an agency under the APA, that the United States military with respect to operations, military operations, are specifically exempt by the APA.

JUSTICE SCALIA: That goes to the merits.

GENERAL OLSON:And that the fundamental nature of what the petitioners are seeking here is the review of the nature and status of their detention, which sounds in and is examined under this Court repeatedly by the doctrine of Habeas Corpus.

And that there is no foundation and in fact I submit, that the way the briefs had been written, the petitioners don't even feel strongly about the APA position. What they're talking about and what their briefs explain -- they are focusing on fundamental habeas corpus as it existed throughout the centuries.

What is important to emphasize here, in respect to all these questions. In respect to how much control would there be? How much control would there be in Guantanamo versus a place in Afghanistan?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I think Guantanamo, everyone agrees is an animal, there is no other like it. The closest would be the Canal Zone I suppose.

GENERAL OLSON: The Canal Zone was treated differently by Congress. Congress created, applied under its responsibility with respect to territorial and insular unincorporated territory. Applied laws there, put a Court there, so it's very different that the Canal Zone.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Why isn't this like, as I asked Mr. Gibbons, a Federal enclave with a state?

GENERAL OLSON: Because it is a, because there is, in the first place, the question of sovereignty is a political decision. It would be remarkable for the judiciary to start deciding where the United States is sovereign and where the United States --

JUSTICE GINSBURG: (inaudible) The word is physical control, power.

GENERAL OLSON: We had that Justice Ginsburg, every place where we would put military detainees in a field of combat, where there are prisons in Afghanistan where we have complete control with respect to the circumstances --

JUSTICE SOUTER: Those -- Afghanistan is not a place where American law is and for a century has customarily been applied to all aspects of life. We even protect the Cuban iguana.

In bringing people from Afghanistan or wherever they were brought to Guantanamo, we are doing in functional terms exaclty what we would do if we brought them to the District of Columbia.

In a functional sense, leaving aside the metaphysics of ultimate sovereignty. If the metaphysics of ultimate sovereignty do not preclude us from doing what we have been doing for the last hundred years, why is it a bar to the exercise of judicial jurisdiction under the habeas statute?

GENERAL OLSON: The Court Actually, heard a case, Stanley v. Hankel in 1901, which specifically addressed that and held that the United States did not have sovereignty, for the enforcement of its laws in Guantanamo.

JUSTICE SOUTER: We've been doing a pretty good job of it since then.

GENERAL OLSON: With respect to a certain area -- a military base in Germany, a military base in Afghanistan, the United States must have and does exercise relatively complete control.

Every argument that's being made here today could be made by the two million persons that were in custody at the end of World War II. And judges would have to decide the circumstances of their detention.

Whether there had been adequate military process, what control existed over the territory in which they were being kept. What this is --

JUSTICE SOUTER: Are you saying there is no statutory regime that applies to Guantanamo, which is different from the statutory or legal regime that applied to occupied territories after World War II or indeed that applies to territory under the control of the American military in Afghanistan or Iraq?

GENERAL OLSON: There are a great deal of differences in connection with every area over which the United States has some degree of control. The degree of control it has here is limited to specific purposes with respect to the sovereignty of Cuba.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Thank you, General Olson. The case is submitted.