jonathankoren@sfba.social makes a good point here:

Post by [@jonathankoren@sfba.social](https://micro.blog/jonathankoren@sfba.social)
View on Mastodon

Source: Boumediene v. Bush | Oyez. Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-1195. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025.

Question

Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? YES.

If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution? YES.

Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions? YES, YES and YES.

Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? YES, damn it.

Conclusion

5–4 DECISION FOR LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE, ET AL. MAJORITY OPINION BY ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

A five-justice majority answered yes to each of these questions. The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees' cases be dismissed. However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's ruling and found in favor of the detainees. Justice David H. Souter concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed separate dissenting opinions.