KIYEMBA ET AL.
v.
OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Guantanamo Bay detainees challenged their indefinite detention through habeas corpus petitions, asking whether federal courts could order their release into the United States. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case because the underlying facts had changed—most detainees received resettlement offers in other countries, making the original legal question potentially moot—and the Court declined to rule on the merits in the first instance rather than allowing the appellate court to address the case in light of these new developments.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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”). 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rigterink v. State, 66 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 2011)…d 221 (Fla.2009) [Rigterink I ], was based on Powell I, the Supreme Court similarly vacated our decision in Rigterink I and remanded Rigterink’s case to this Court “for further consideration in light of [Powell II ].” Florida v. Rigterink, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 176 L.Ed.2d 175 (2010) [Rigterink II ]. On remand, it is our obligation to first determine whether the warnings that were given to Rigterink satisfied the requirements of article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution; only if the warnings are s…1 / 2
-
State v. McADAMS, 193 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 2016)…h actual arrest. Caldwell v. State, 41 So. 3d 188, 197 (Fla.2010). Further, while precedent remains a guide, custody determinations are heavily fact dependent. Rigterink v. State, 2 So. 3d 221, 246 (Fla.2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 965, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 176 L.Ed.2d 175 (2010). We have applied these standards and conclude that although McAdams was not in custody initially, the encounter with the detectives steadily evolved into a custodial situation in which " a reasonable person would not have fe…
-
Rigterink v. State, 193 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016)…Rigterink was convicted for the 2003 murders of Jeremy Jarvis and Allison Sousa and sentenced to death , for both murders. Rigterink v. State (Rigterink I), 2 So. 3d 221, 227 (Fla.2009), vacated by Florida v. Rigterink (Rigterink II), 559 U.S. 965, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 176 L.Ed.2d 175 (2010). The facts were detailed by this Court in Rigterink I: Shortly after 3:00 p.m. on September 24, 2003, a male in his late twenties to early thirties, who fit the general description of Rigterink, .attacked victim Jeremy Jarvi…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (U.S. 2005)