Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kiyemba Vs. Obama

Kiyemba vs Obama

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-01-2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/108770

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
08-1234
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kiyemba

Respondent

Obama

Excerpt

kiyemba v. obama - 08-1234 (2010) kiyemba v. obama - 08-1234 (2010) 559 u. s. ____ (2010) kiyemba v. obama 559 u. s. ____ (2010) supreme court of the united states jamal kiyemba et al. v. barack h. obama, president of the united states et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit no. 08-1234. decided march 1, 2010    per curiam.    we granted certiorari, 558 u. s. ___ (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.

Full Judgment

Kiyemba v. Obama - 08-1234 (2010)

Kiyemba v. Obama - 08-1234 (2010)

559 U. S. ____ (2010)
KIYEMBA V. OBAMA
559 U. S. ____ (2010)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAMAL KIYEMBA et al. v. BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 08-1234. Decided March 1, 2010

   Per Curiam.

   We granted certiorari, 558 U. S. ___ (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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial