Citation network
Rasul Vs. Bush
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Rasul V. BushSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Rasul Et Al. V. BushSearch
-
Court construed the suits as habeas petitions and dismissed them for want of jurisdiction, holding that, under Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
s then-recent decision in Ahrens v. ClarkSearch
-
is presumed not to have extraterritorial application unless Congress clearly manifests such an intent, EEOC v. ArabianSearch
-
that privilege. United States courts have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens. Cf. Disconto Gesellschaft v. UmbreitSearch
-
Al Odah et al. v. UnitedSearch
-
States et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Rasul v. BushSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Opinion of the Court Rasul V. BushSearch
-
the District Court dismissed them for want of jurisdiction. The court held, in reliance on our opinion in Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, 14 Stat. 385. See Felker v. TurpinSearch
-
by the time the Colonies achieved independence, Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
Cyr, 533 U. S. 289 , 301 (2001). See also Brown v. AllenSearch
-
Shaughnessy v. UnitedSearch
-
Eisentrager v. ForrestalSearch
-
for habeas corpus in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this Court issued its decision in Ahrens v. ClarkSearch
-
Id., at 498 (citing Burns v. WilsonSearch
-
legislation is presumed not to have extraterritorial application unless such intent is clearly manifested. EEOC v. ArabianSearch
-
of the United States. Foley Bros., Inc. v. FilardoSearch
-
King v. CowleSearch
-
at 1139. The courts of the United States have traditionally been open to nonresident aliens. Cf. Disconto Gesellschaft v. UmbreitSearch
-
Moore v. OlsonSearch
-
Armentero v. INSSearch
-
Henderson v. INSSearch
-
Chatman-Bey v. ThornburghSearch
-
See also, e.g., Patterson v. McLeanSearch
-
the territorial jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Ibid . Footnote 11 See, e.g., King v. SchieverSearch
-
Sommersett v. StewartSearch
-
American courts followed a similar practice in the early years of the Republic. See, e.g., United States v. VillatoSearch
-
Wilson v. IzardSearch
-
Alder v. PuisySearch
-
of the writ at common law). Footnote 13 See, e.g., King v. OvertonSearch
-
King v. SalmonSearch
-
Ex parte Mwenya, 1 Q. B., at 265 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also King v. TheSearch
-
c)(3). Cf. United States v. Verdugo-UrquidezSearch
-
Kennedy, J., concurring), and cases cited therein. Rasul v. BushSearch
-
Kennedy, J., Concurring in Judgment Rasul V. BushSearch
-
s approach is not a plausible reading of Braden or Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
true to the reasoning of Eisentrager . For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court. Rasul v. BushSearch
-
Scalia, J., Dissenting Rasul V. BushSearch
-
it contradicts a half-century-old precedent on which the military undoubtedly relied, Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
Kokkonen v. GuardianSearch
-
understand its implications for the present dispute, I must also discuss our decisions in the earlier case of Ahrens v. ClarkSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial