Doe v. Mattis
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
928 F.3d 1 (2019)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
In September 2017, John Doe (defendant) surrendered to Syrian Democratic Forces on an active battlefield in Syrian territory controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Doe informed the Syrian Democratic Forces that he was an American citizen and asked to speak to United States officials. Doe was transferred to the custody of United States military forces. The United States military made a preliminary determination that Doe was an enemy combatant and detained him at a United States facility in Iraq. The United States determined that Doe was a member or substantial supporter of ISIL, a designated foreign terrorist organization. In October 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus on Doe’s behalf. The ACLU requested an order barring the government from transferring Doe to another country until the court decided on the merits of his petition. The court granted the request in part, requiring the government to give 72 hours’ notice before transferring Doe. In 2018, the government communicated its intent to transfer Doe, and Doe moved for a preliminary injunction barring the transfer. The district court granted the injunction, and the government appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Srinivasan, J.)
Dissent (Henderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.