UNI TED S TATES DI S TRI CT COURT FO R T H E D IST R IC T O F C O L U M B IA

F ADI AL MAQALEH, et al., P e ti ti one r s, v. Civil Action No. 06-1669 ROBERT GATES, et al., Re spo nde nt s.
AMIN A L BAKRI, e t al., P e ti ti one r s, v. Civil Action No. 08-1307 BARACK

H. OBAMA, et al., Re spo nde nt s.
REDHA AL-NAJA R, etal., P e ti ti one r s, v. Civil Action No. 08-2143 ROBERT GATES, et al., Re spo nde nt s.
M EM ORANDUM OPI NI ON & ORDER Be fore the Court are responde nts' motions for c ertification for interlocutory appea l pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and f or a stay of proc eeding s pendingappea l. These motions are fully briefe d and the Court hea rd ora l argument on May

21, 2009. For

the re asons explained below, both of re spondents' motions wil l be g rante d. I. Bac kgr ound Th e thr e e pe tit ion e rs in t

he se c a se s a

re de ta ine d b y

the Un ite d St ate s at B a g ra m A ir F ie ldTh e Court did no t de ny re sp on de nts ' mot ion

to d ism iss the ha

be a s p e tit ion

fi le d b y Ha ji 1 Wazi r, an A fg han citizen. The Cour t he l d t ha t W a z i r i s no t e nt i t l e d t o i nvok e t he pr ot e c t i ons of t he Su s pe ns i on Cl a us e , a nd r e j e c t e d s e ve r a l of

hi s ot he r a r g ume nt s a s t o t he un c ons t i t ut i ona l i t y of M C A § 7(a)
. The C ou r t deter m i ned , ho w ever, t hat i t r equ i r ed f urt her br i ef

i ng t o resol ve a f

i nal i s s ue r a i s e d b y W a z i r : whe t he r M CA § 7( a ) i s un c ons t i t ut i ona l un de r Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Kl e i n, 80 U .S . ( 1 3 W a l l .) 1 2 8 (1 8 7 1 ) , a n d it s p r o ge n y. -2- in A fgha nis tan a nd have be e n in

U. S. c us tod

y fo r m or e tha

n s ix y e ars . E a c h p e tit ion e r s e e ks to challeng e the leg ality

of his detention throug h a petition for a writ of habe as cor

pus. Respondents filed motions to dism iss each ha beas pe tition on j urisdictional g rounds. They po int e d o ut t

hat § 7 (a ) o f t

he Mil ita ry Commis sio ns Ac t of

20 06 , Pu b. L . N o. 10 9- 36 6, 12 0 St at. 2600 (" MCA") , strips feder al district courts of jurisdiction to enter tain a habe as petition filed by "a n alien deta ined by

the United States who ha s been de termined by the United States to have be e n p ro pe rl y

de ta ine d a s an e ne my

c omb atant. " MCA§ 7 (a ) i s c on sti tut ion a l, r e sp on de nts contende d, beca

use petitioners such a s these have no rig ht to invoke the Suspension Cl ause of the Con sti tut ion , A rt . I

§ 9 c l. 2 , whic h p e rm its the su sp e ns ion of ha be a s c or pu s r ig hts in c e rt a in
c ir c ums tanc e s. Re sp on de nts c on c lud e d th at a bs e nt a statut or y ba sis fo r h a

be a s juri sd ic tio n, thi s Court wa s r e qu ir e d to dis mis s th e se ha be a s p e tit ion s. On April 2, 2009, this Court denied re spondents' motions t o dismiss the habe as petitions filed by these de tainees. In doing so, the Court interprete d and applied the multi-factor te st set 1 fo rt h b y the Sup re me Court

in B oume die ne v. B us h, 12 8 S. Ct. 22 29 (2 00 8) . T his Court he ld that "B ag ram de tainees who are not Afg han citizens, who wer e not ca ptured in Afghanistan, and who have been he ld for an unr easona ble amount of time -- here , over six y ear s -- without
a de qu ate pr oc e ss m ay

inv ok e the pr ote c tio ns of the Sus pe ns ion

Cla us e ." Al Ma qa le h v . G ate s, 60 4 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 05 , 2 35 (D .D .C. 20 09 ). B e c a us e MCA§ 7 (a ) d oe s n ot a mou nt t o a va lid-3-

suspension of the wr it of habea s corpus unde r the Suspension Clause, the Court held that MCA § 7(a) constitutes an unconstitutional suspension of habea s rig hts as applied to these pe titioners. I d. Th e Ap ri l 2 M e mor and um O pin ion

re pr e se nts the on ly

int e rp re tatio n a

nd a pp lic atio n to date of the multi-factor

test established in Boume diene. All habe as petitions by Ba g ram de ta ine e s h ave be e n f

ile d in the U. S. D ist

ri c t Co ur t f or the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia , a

nd tho se petitions were c onsolidated befor e the unde rsig ned judg e of this Court for de termination of the jur isd ic tio na l is su e . T hu s, no oth e r c ourt (a nd no oth e r j ud g e of

thi s Co ur t) ha s h a d o c c a sio n to interpre t or apply

the B oumediene te st to detainees at Ba g ram. II. Motion for Cert if

ication for App eal Ce rt if ic atio n f or int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l is g ov e rn e d b y

28 U. S.C. § 1 29 2( b) , whic h p e rm its a district cour

t to certify

an orde r for

interlocutory

appea l if the court state s in writing that the order "involves a

controlling question of law a s to which there is substantial ground f or differ ence of opinion and that an immediate appea l from the orde r may materia lly

advanc e the ultimate termination of the litigation." Interlocutory appea ls under § 1292(b) are only war rante d in "e x ceptional c ircumstance s." See Coopers & Ly brand v. L ivesay , 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978);
se e a lso Judic ia l Watc h, Inc . v . N at' l E ne rgy Pol ic y De v. Gr ou

p, 23 3 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 6, 20 (D .D .C. 20 02 ) ( " A p art

y se e kin gc e rt if

ic atio n p ur su ant t o § 12 92 (b ) m us t me e t a

high s tand ard

to
overc ome the ' strongcong ressional policy ag ainst piece meal re views, and a g ainst obstructing or impeding a

n ong oing judicia l proce edingby interlocutory

appea ls.'" ) (quotingUnited States v. Nix on, 418 U.S. 683, 690 (1974)). H ere , petitioners do not dispute that the jurisdictional issues at the hea rt of the Court' s April 2 Memorandum Opinion involve " controlling question[s ] of-4-

law." Instead, pe titioners contend that the r equire ments of § 1292(b) a re not satisfied be cause (1) these c ases do not pre sent " substantial gr ound[s] for diff ere nce of opinion" and ( 2) ce rtification of ap peal wi ll no t "m ate ri all y adv ance t he u lt im ate termi nat io n o f t he l it igat io n. " The fir st issue, then, is whether the re a re substantial g rounds for dif fer ence of opinion. Respondents argue that seve ral a spects of the Court's Me morandum Opinion prese nt gr ounds for dif fe re nc e of op ini on . T he y

a sse rt , f or e xamp le , th at th e Court

mis int e rp re te d B oume die ne in conductingits analy sis of U.S. control and jurisdiction at B ag ram. See Resps.' Mot. at 6. Petitioners point out t hat re spondents essentially repe at their pre vious lit iga tion posit ion
re gar d i n g U. S
. co n tro l an d j uri s d i ct i o n , an d

a p arty 's o wn d i s agr ee m en twi tha d i s tri ctco urt 's conclusion does not constitute " substantial gr ound[s] for diff ere nce of opinion." See Pet' rs' Opp. at 6-8. Petitioners ar g ue that a c onflict is neede d to satisfy this aspect of § 1292( b) -- either betwee n judge s on the same c ourt or betwe en cir cuits. Of c ourse, the kind of

conflict pe titioners maintain is necessa ry could not have a

risen here . All habea s petitions by Ba g ram de tainees pe nding in the U .S. District Court for the District of Columbia were consolidated be fore this judge f or dete rmination of the jurisdictional issue, and no Ba g ram de tainee ha s filed a ha beas pe tition i n any

other fe dera l district court. To be sure , a restate ment of a pa

rty ' s liti g ation position would notnormally raise substantial grounds for differ ence of opinion under § 1292( b). B ut these ca ses pre sent extraordinary circ umstances. Th is C ourt ' s inte rp re tatio n a nd a pp lic atio n o f B oume die ne wa s n ot t he me c ha nic a l, r outin e ta sk petitioners appa

rently take it to have be en. Althoug h this Court believes that its conclusions are
corr ect, g iven the novelty of the issues cour

ts could rea sonably

differ in the application of the multi-factor B oumediene te st to the Bagram The ater Internment F acility . Henc e, the Court finds-5-

that the first re quirement of § 1292( b) -- that the ca se " involves . . . controlling que stion[ s] of law as to which ther e [are] substantial g round[s] for diff ere nce of opinion" -- is satisfied. The sec ond issue is whether " an immediate a ppeal f rom the orde r may

materia lly

advanc e the ult imate te rm inatio n o f t he lit ig atio n. " Se e § 1 29 2( b) . I f t his Court is r e ve rs e d o n a

pp e a l, the n th e se c a se s w ill be te rm inate d ( un le ss f ur the r a pp e a l is so ug ht) . Pe tit ion e rs argue that if thi s Court is not reverse d, then the ultimate termination of the litig ation will be protrac ted, not advanc ed, by

the appe al. See Pet' rs' Opp. at 8-12. U ltimate termination of this lit iga tion will be hastene d, petitioners contend, if these c ases pr ocee d to determinations on their mer its now. Should respondents seek to c halleng e this Court's inter pretation and application of B oumediene, they may do so at the conc lusion of a merits deter mination. When there a

re substantial g rounds for dif fer ence of opinion as to a cour t's subjec t matter jur isd ic tio n, c ourt s r e g ula rl y ho ld t hat imme diate a

pp e a l ma y " mate ri a lly

a dv anc e the ult imate termination of the litiga

tion." See, e .g ., APCC S ervs., Inc. v. AT& T Corp., 297 F. Supp. 2d 101, 109 (D.D.C. 2003) ( "[A]lthough plaintiffs ar g ue cor rec tly that they will be prejudice d by

further de lay s, in t

he e ve nt t hat it is u lti mate ly

fo un d th at th is C ourt

la c ks jurisd ic tio n to lit ig ate the se
case s, it would be far

better f or all conc erne d, including pla intiffs, to have these matters re solved now, as opposed to sometime in the distant future .") ; L emer y v. For d Motor Co., 244 F. Supp. 2d 72 0, 72 8 ( S.D . T e x. 20 02 ) ( " I t w ou ld p a in t he Court to s e e bo th atto rn e y s . . . [an d p art ie s] proce ed to judg ment afte r consider able e x pense a nd delay , only

to discover that the judg ment must be overturne d on appea l beca use the fe dera l judiciary

lacks subjec t matter jurisdiction.")
. Moreove r, interlocutor

y appea l is warra

nted wher e the jurisdictional dete rmination will im pact
numerous ca ses. See Kling hoffe r v. S.N.C. Achille L auro, 921 F .2d 21, 24 (2d Cir. 1990). He re,-6-

the Court has alre ady

deter mined that fede ral district cour ts have jurisdiction to hear these thre e pendingcase s, and additional ca ses might be filed by other B ag ram de tainees in U.S. custody as well. Henc e, the Court agree s with cases like A PCC Service s, which conc lude that an a ppeal a s to a cour t's subjec t matter jurisdiction may "materially

advanc e the ultimate ter

mination of the li ti gati on ." In sum, the require ments of § 1292(b) a re satisfied here . These c ases pr esent the kind of
e x tr a o r d i n ar

y j ur i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e s u i t a b l e f o r c e rt i f i c at i o nf o r i n t e r l o c u t o r

y a p p e a l
. A c c o r d i n g l y, responde nts' motion for c ertifica tion for interlocutory

appea l will be gr anted. III. Motion f

or Stay P endin g Appeal To preva il on a motion for a stay pendingappea l, a par

ty must show: (1) a likelihood of preva iling on the mer its of its appeal; (2) that it will suffe r irre para ble injury absent the stay ; (3) that th e no n- mov ingpa

rt y wi ll n ot b e ha

rm e d b y the iss ua nc e of a sta y ; and (4 ) t hat th e pu bli c int e re st w ill be se rv e d b y

a sta y . U nit e d St ate s v . Ph ili p M or ri s, Inc ., 31 4 F .3 d 6 12 , 6 17 (D .C. Cir. 2003) (citingWashington Metropolitan Ar ea T ransit Commiss ion v. Holiday Tours, Ind., 559 F.2d 841, 843 ( D.C. Cir. 1977)). " These f actor s interre late on a slidingscale and must be ba lanc e d a g a ins t e a c h o the r. " Se ro no L a bo rator ie s, Inc . v . Sh a la la , 1 58 F .3 d 1 31 3, 13 18 (D .C. C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). "T h e t es ti s a f l ex i b l e o n e [ an d ] [ i ] n

j un ct i v e r el i ef

m ay b e gr an t edwi thei th er

a h i gh likelihood of succe ss and some injury , or vice versa ." Cuomo v. U.S. Nucle ar Regulatory Comm' n, 77 2 F .2 d 9 72 , 9 74 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 5) . " I f t he argume nts fo r o ne fa c tor are pa rt ic ula rl y strong , an injunction may issue even if

the ar g uments in other ar eas a re r ather weak." City

Fe d Fin. Corp. v. Of

fice of Thrift Super

vision, 58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Still, a stay pendingappea l -- like other injunctive relief

-- is " an extraordinar

y reme dy ." Cuomo, 772 F .2d at-7-

978. As to the first fa ctor, the movingparty need not e stablish "an a

bsolute cer

tainty of
succe ss"; rather, " [i ]twill ordinarily be enough that the [movant] has ra ised serious leg al questions goingto the merits, so serious, substantial, difficult as to make them a fa ir g round of litigation . . . ." Population I nst. v. McPherson, 797 F.2d 1062, 1078 ( D.C. Cir. 1986) (quoting Holiday Tours, 559 F .2d at 844). The Court has alre ady deter mined that these c ases pr esent issues as to which ther e is " a substantial g round for differ ence of opinion" f

or purpose s of
cer tification for inter locutory appea l. The issues pre sented a re nove l and weighty

-- f undamental constitutional questions are pre sented. It follows, then, that these c ases pr esent " serious leg al questions . . . [ that are ] so s erious, substantial, [and] di fficult as to make them a fa ir g round for lit ig atio n. " Se e id. He nc e , th e fi rs t f a c tor sq ua re ly fa vo rs re sp on de nts . The sec ond fac tor, irre para ble injury to respondents, pre sents a close r question. Re sp on de nts argue that pr oc e e din gwi th t he se c a se s d

ur ingthe pe nd e nc y

of an a pp e a l w ou ld imp os e ir re pa ra ble ha rm on the m ( i.e ., on

the Un ite d St ate s) be c a

us e the dis c ov e ry

pr oc e ss, inc lud ingthe c omp ilatio n o f f a c tua l r e tur

ns , w ou ld l ike ly

div e rt the mil ita

ry fr om i ts m iss ion

in Afg hanistan and pote ntially put U.S. personnel in har m's w ay . See Resps.' Mot. at 8-12. Petitioners counter that this C ourt has alr eady deter mined that the pra ctical obstac les of litigating these ha beas c ases a

re not so g reat as to defe at jurisdiction under B oumediene, a nd hence they should not be so gr eat a s to warr ant a stay pendingappea l. See Pet' rs' Opp. at 17-20. Although pe titioners' a

rgument has some super ficial a ppeal, a n analy sis of harm to the
m o v i n g p arty

fo r c o n s i d er at i o no f as t ay i s v ery d i ff er en tfr o man al y s i s o f B o u m ed i en e's "p ra ct i ca l o b s t ac l es " f

ac t o r. W h et h er

p ra ct i ca l o b s t ac l es ar e s o gre atas t o d ef ea ta p et i t i o n er 's-8-

claim to a constitutional rig ht is a qualitatively differ ent question than whe ther discove ry -re lated harms ar e suff

iciently g reat and irre para

ble as to justify

a stay pendingappea l. Moreover , re a c hin gthe c on c lus ion

that pr a c tic a l ob sta c le s o f p ro vid ingha be a s r e vie w a

re no t so g re at a s to defe at jurisdiction as a c onstitut ional matter wa s not the fac ile task petitioners take it to have been. I ndeed, the Court repe atedly noted B oumediene' s observation that practica l obstacles ar e enhanc ed whe n a dete ntion facility is located in an a ctive theater of w ar a nd conclude d that prac tical obstacle s were sufficie nt to defeat the extension of the Suspension C lause to Wazir, an Afg han citizen. See Al Maqale h, 604 F. Supp. 2d at 230-31. The discove ry -re lated har ms respondents anticipate ar e " both cer tain and g reat." See Wis consin Gas v. F ERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). In producingdiscovery from Ba g ram, a

n active military

zone, and modifying f

acilities at B ag ram to allow for litigation of habea s case s, responde nts will be require d to divert at lea st some of the military ' s resourc es fr om the ir c or e mis sio ns in A fgha

nis tan. He nc e , e ve n if

the pr a c tic a l ob sta c le s a

re no t so g re at a s to defe at jurisdiction, the harm is still sufficient to weig h in favor of a stay , and thus the sec ond fa c tor fa vo rs re sp on de nts . The third fa ctor a ssesses the ha rm to the non-movingparty , and off sets the sec ond fac tor he re . Re sp on de nts argue that any ha rm to p e tit ion e rs is m ini mize d b e c a us e re sp on de nts int e nd

to seek e x pedited appe llate re view and be cause the President, pursua nt to Ex ecutive O rder

13,493, 74 Fe d. Reg . 4901 (Jan. 22, 2009), has cr eate d a task for ce that is conducting a compr ehensive revie w of de tention policies. See Resps.' Mot. at 13. Although the Court does not doubt responde nts' r epre sentation that they intend to seek e x pedited appe llate re view, it is worth noting that the dec ision to gra

nt expedited review lies with the c ourt of appe als, not responde nts.-9-

Moreove r, petitioners c orre ctly point out that before issuingits April 2 Memorandum Opinion, this Court ex pressly

g ave the President an oppor tunity to refine his positi on in Febr uary 2009. Respondents dec lined that opportunity then, and he nce the ir argument now that future policy chang es propose d by

the President should inform this Court's re solution of their motion for a stay pendingappea l falls flat. The ha rm to petitioners should a stay be g rante d -- c ontinued detention -- is cle ar a

nd substantial whateve r the justification for detention. The third f

actor , then, weig hs in f avo r o f p e tit ion e rs . Both pa rties have strongarguments as to the fourth f actor -- the public inter est. Respondents point out that the public has an intere st in the President beingable to wa g e wa r without court-imposed burde ns. See Resps.' Mot. at 12-13. Petitioners, on the other ha nd, maintain that there is a weig hty public interest in ensuringthat constitutional rights ar e vindicated a

nd that the President does not usurp the power s of coor dinate bra nches. Pet' rs' Opp. at 20. As in many

case s impli catingconstitutional considerations, both arguments have me rit. Se e , e .g ., Jew ish

War Ve te ra ns of the Un ite d St ate s v . G ate s, 52 2 F . Su pp . 2 d 7 3, 82 -8 3 ( D. D. C. 2007). Indeed, the ir positions si mply ref lect their opposingviews on those important issues. H e n c e , th i s f

a c t o r d o e s n o tf

av o r e i th e r p arty. On balanc e, the Court conc ludes that a stay pendingappea l is warra

nted her e. To be sure, a stay pendingappea l is "an e x traordina ry reme dy ." See Cuomo, 772 F.2d at 978. B ut these ar e extraordinary

case s of sig nificant national and international interest. This Court's inter pretation of B oume die ne wa s n ot t

he me c ha nic a l a pp lic atio n o f a

n e sta bli sh e d te st. Rathe r, re a so na ble
c ourt s c ou ld d if

fe r a s to ho w c e rt a in f

a c tor s sh ou ld b e int e rp re te d a nd wh at w e ig ht e a c h f

a c tor is due. The constitutional iss ues pre sented a re c onsequential a

nd fundame ntal: at stake a re-10-

separ ation of powe rs consider ations, the President' s authority to wag e wa

r abr oad fr ee f

rom judicial scrutiny , and the c onstitut ional rig hts of cer tain aliens deta ined abr oad indef initely by the Un ite d St ate s. As no te d a bo ve , th e n, the fi rs t f

a c tor sq ua re ly fa c tor s r e sp on de nts . The re maining f

actor s -- the ba lance of intere sts -- ar e in equipoise. Althoug h petitioners have a pe rs ua siv e argume nt t

hat th e pu bli c int e re st f

avo rs de nia l of

a sta y pe nd inga

pp e a l, responde nts have a

n equally persua sive argument that the public intere st demands a stay
. Simi larly , althoug h petitioners ar g ue convinc ingly that they will suffer the quintessential substantial, irrepa

rable harm -- continued inca rce ration -- should these ca ses be stayed,
re sp on de nts have an e qu a lly c onvin c ingargume nt t

hat th e Un ite d St ate s w ill su ff e r i rr e pa ra ble harms to vital national intere sts should t hese c ases pr ocee d duringthe pende ncy of appe al. Be cause the sec ond, third, and four th fac tors eff

ectively canc el ea ch other

out, the Court is left with the first fac tor, which, a s discussed above , square ly favor s responde nts. W hen " the
argume nts fo r o ne fa c tor

are pa rt ic ula rl y str on g , a n in jun c tio n ma

y iss ue e ve n if

the argume nts in oth e r a re a s are rathe r w e ak. " City F e d F in. Cor

p. , 5 8 F .3 d at 74 6. He re , th e ba lanc e of int e re sts does not provide a

clea r answe r on the stay

issue, but there is no leg itimate dispute that the jurisdictional issue is an ext reme ly serious one on which cour ts reasona bly could diffe r. Acc ording ly , responde nts' motion for a stay pendingappea l will be gr anted. IV. Conclusion Iti s h e r e b y OR

DE RE D that responde nts' motion for c ertification for interlocutory appea l of Al Ma qa le h v . G ate s, 60 4 F . Su pp . 2 d 2 05 (D .D .C. 20 09 ), is G RA NT ED and the or de r i s
cer tified for immediate appea l pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).-11-

I t i s f u rt h er ORDERED tha t r esp o n d en ts' m o ti o n f o r a stay p en d ing ap p eal is GRANTED
. S O O R D E R E D . /s/ JOHN D. BATES U n ite d S ta te s D is tric t J u d ge
Dat e : Jun e 1, 20 09