Reflecting on the application of precedent in Judge Tanya Chutkan's most recent Doe v. Mattis opinion.
Latest in Detention
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in Doe v. Mattis on January 23, declining to further enjoin the government from transferring Doe out of U.S. custody but requiring the government to provide both the court and the ACLU with 72 hours' notice prior to Doe's transfer.
Turning a Citizen Military Detainee Over to Another Country: The Valentine/Munaf Issue in Doe v. Mattis
How should Judge Chutkan weigh the Supreme Court's 1936 ruling in Valentine v. United States?
The questions that arise in the matter pending before Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the D.C. federal district court issued an ordered in Doe v. Mattis on Jan. 18. Chutkan ordered the government not to transfer John Doe until Jan. 23, when the order suggests that the court will have ruled on Doe's pending motion for continued interim relief. The full order is included below:
A response to a group of Guantanamo detainees who argue that U.S. government’s authority to use military detention under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force has quietly expired.
All you need to know about what's to come in the merits portion of the U.S. citizen enemy combatant’s habeas litigation.
The U.S. government has filed its response in John Doe and ACLU v. Mattis in response to the habeas filing we posted last week. You can read the full document here:
Document: U.S. Citizen Detained as Enemy Combatant Requests ACLU Representation in Habeas Proceeding
The ACLU has spoken to the U.S. citizen that the military is detaining as an enemy combatant.
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the following Memorandum Opinion in ACLU v. Mattis that, among other things, denies the Defense Department's motion to dismiss and orders the Defense Department to "allow the ACLUF immediate and unmonitored access to the detainee for the sole purpose of determining whether the detainee wishes for the ACLUF to continue this action on his behalf."