National Security
Al-Marri v. Gates | Al-Marri v. Spagone
ACLU attorney Jonathan Hafetz is representing U.S. resident Ali al-Marri—who was militarily detained by the government for nearly six years—in two cases: Al-Marri v. Spagone, a habeas corpus action, has ended with President Obama's decision to give al-Marri what he has demanded all along and what the Constitution requires: an opportunity to contest the criminal charges against him in court. Al-Marri v. Gates, challenges al-Marri's mistreatment during his military confinement.
Read friend-of-the-court briefs >>
FEATURES
Adam Habib talks about his exclusion from the U.S.
NEWS
> ACLU Urges Supreme Court To Deny Motion To Dismiss Al-Marri Case (3/3/2009)
> Government Brings Federal Charges Against ACLU Client Ali Al-Marri (2/27/2009)
> ACLU Asks Supreme Court To Outlaw Indefinite Detention Of U.S. Residents (1/21/2009)
> Supreme Court Agrees To Review ACLU's Landmark Indefinite Detention Case (12/5/2008)
> Former U.S. Attorney General, Justice Officials, Top Military Officers Urge Supreme Court To Review Indefinite Detention Case (10/23/2008)
> ACLU Challenges Destruction Of Evidence In Indefinite Detention Case (10/17/2008)
> New Documents Reveal Unlawful Guantánamo Procedures Were Also Applied On American Soil (10/8/2008)
> ACLU Urges Supreme Court To Review Landmark Indefinite Detention Case (9/19/2008)
> New York Times Editorial: Detaining Mr. Marri (7/20/2008)
> New York Times Editorial: Indefinite Detention (11/25/2008)
BLOG
> Charges (Finally) Brought Against al-Marri
> Military And Civilian Leaders Ask Supreme Court to Turn the Page on a Lawless Era
> President Obama Delays ACLU's Al-Marri Case
> Meanwhile, Back in a South Carolina Navy Brig...
> Guantánamo at Home
> The Hotly-Anticipated and Exceedingly Handy ACLU Supreme Court Overview is Here!
CASE DOCUMENTS/RESOURCES
> Al-Marri v. Spagone - Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss
> U.S.A. v. al-Marri - Indictment
> Justice Department Statement on al-Marri Indictment
> Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner
> The ACLU in Supreme Court: Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli
> Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli - Reply to Brief in Opposition (11/10/2008)
> Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli - Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (9/19/2008)
> Amicus Briefs in Support of Cert.
> Al-Marri Cert. Petition Appendix
> Al-Marri v. Gates, et al. - Magistrate's Order (10/17/2008)
> Al-Marri v. Gates, et al. - Motion Appealing Magistrate's Order (10/17/2008)
> 4th Circuit En Banc Decision
> More: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri (The Brennan Center for Justice, off-site)
Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Qatari national, came lawfully to the United States in September 2001 with his wife and five children to pursue a master's degree at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. He was arrested by the FBI at his home that December and subsequently indicted for credit-card fraud and for making false statements to the FBI. Al-Marri asserted his innocence and prepared to contest the charges. But on June 23, 2003, on the eve of a hearing to suppress illegally seized evidence and less than a month before trial, President Bush declared al-Marri an al Qaeda agent and designated him an "enemy combatant" in the "war on terror." That same day, the military took custody of al-Marri and incarcerated him at the Navy brig in South Carolina, indefinitely and without charge.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube’s privacy statement on their website and Google’s privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU’s privacy statement, click here.
Al-Marri challenged his detention and the power of the President to order the military to seize and detain indefinitely without charge or trial individuals lawfully residing in the United States, including American citizens, based on the government's assertions that they planned to commit terrorist acts. In June 2007, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Congress had not authorized the President, and that the President was not independently empowered, to detain al-Marri indefinitely. The government requested that the full Fourth Circuit rehear the case, and in July 2008 the full Fourth Circuit narrowly ruled, in a fractured decision, that the President had the legal authority to imprison al-Marri indefinitely without charge based on the facts alleged. As Judge Motz noted in dissent, however, to accept the government's claim of extraordinary detention power would have "disastrous consequences for the Constitution—and the country."
Al-Marri sought review of the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Supreme Court, and in December 2008 the Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. He argued that his detention without charge represented an unprecedented and illegal expansion of executive detention power, and that the United States was founded on the principle that individuals living in this country cannot be imprisoned without charge. His detention, he argued, was a radical departure from that celebrated legal tradition—one that Congress never authorized and that violated the Constitution. Numerous "friends of the court" weighed in supporting al-Marri and demonstrating the widespread public concern about the legal authority asserted by the government.
On February 26, 2009, nearly six years after al-Marri was detained by the military, the United States criminally charged al-Marri with material support of terrorism. The next day, the government moved to dismiss the Supreme Court case as moot and sought al-Marri's transfer from military to civilian custody. Al-Marri argued that his case in the Supreme Court should still go forward but that, at the very least, the Court should vacate the Fourth Circuit's judgment because it "would leave legal residents and American citizens within the country vulnerable to indefinite military detention in the future." The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, but, in an important step, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment, thereby wiping out the ruling upholding the Bush administration's asserted authority to detain without charge or trial legal residents and American citizens arrested in the United States for suspected terrorist activities.
Al-Marri's case will now proceed in federal criminal court where he will have the opportunity to contest the government's allegations. This is precisely the opportunity al-Marri has sought all along, and the opportunity he should have been given—in accordance with our Constitution—seven years ago after he was first arrested. Jonathan Hafetz, Al-Marri's lead attorney in the Supreme Court, stated that "[w]e trust that the Obama administration will not repeat the abuses of the Bush administration having now chosen to prosecute Mr. al-Marri in federal court rather than defend the Bush administration's actions in this case."