Citation network
Munaf Vs. Geren
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 2008
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, 2007 Munaf V. GerenSearch
-
s exercise of habeas jurisdiction, finding that Hirota v. MacArthurSearch
-
American citizens, and the Court has indicated that habeas jurisdiction can depend on citizenship. See e.g., Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
It should never be awarded as of right, Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
Gonzales v. O CentroSearch
-
City and County of Denver v. NewSearch
-
suggests that habeas is not appropriate. Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. Hamdi v. RumsfeldSearch
-
U. S. 507 , 536. The typical remedy is, of course, release. See, e.g. , Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
on its soil, even if its criminal process does not come with all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, see Neely v. HenkelSearch
-
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddonSearch
-
argument that, under Valentine v. UnitedSearch
-
Geren, Secretary of the Army, et al. v. OmarSearch
-
et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Munaf v. GerenSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Munaf V. GerenSearch
-
s behalf in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Omar v. HarveySearch
-
s decision in Hirota v. MacArthurSearch
-
filed a next-friend petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Mohammed v. HarveySearch
-
s holding in Wilson v. GirardSearch
-
c)(1). See Duncan v. WalkerSearch
-
him. Wales v. WhitneySearch
-
Tr. of Oral Arg. in Hirota v. MacArthurSearch
-
Hirota did not, and the Court has indicated that habeas jurisdiction can depend on citizenship. See Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
-
Romero v. InternationalSearch
-
Department of Navy v. EganSearch
-
it is never awarded as of right, Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
do Vegetal , 546 U. S. 418 , 428 (2006) (citing Mazurek v. ArmstrongSearch
-
Doran v. SalemSearch
-
Omar v. HarveySearch
-
York Trust Co. , 229 U. S. 123 , 136 (1913). See also Deckert v. IndependenceSearch
-
quoting Meccano, Ltd. v. JohnSearch
-
the context of ongoing military operations, reaching the merits is the wisest course. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
See Danforth v. MinnesotaSearch
-
that habeas is not appropriate in these cases. Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention. Hamdi v. RumsfeldSearch
-
plurality opinion). The typical remedy for such detention is, of course, release. See, e.g. , Preiser v. RodriguezSearch
-
in Munaf v. HarveySearch
-
Kinsella v. KruegerSearch
-
Girard v. WilsonSearch
-
Johnson v. EisentragerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial