1 Cite as: 56 3 U

. S. ____ (2011)
Statement of B REYER , J. 

## SUPREME CO URT O F THE UNI TED STATES JAMAL KIYEMBA, ET AL ., PETIT I ONERS v. BARAC K H. OBAMA, PRE S IDE N T OF THE UNIT E D STAT E S , ET AL

. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATE S COU R T OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C I RCUIT No. 10–7 75. Dec i ded Apr il 18, 201 1 The motion of petitione r s for leave to file a supplemental brief under seal is gr anted. The petition f o r a writ o f certiorari is denied. J USTICE K AGANtookno part in the consideration or decisi on of th is motion and this petition. Statement of J USTICE B REYER , with who m J USTICE K ENN E DY , J USTICE G IN S B UR G , and J USTI CE S OTOMAYOR join, respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari. Petitioners have been held for se veral years in custody at Guantan amo Bay, Cuba—a detention that the Govern

ment agrees was without lawful cause. Brief in Oppos i

tion 2. They seek a judicialorder that would r e quire their release from custody into the Uni t ed States

. The District Court concl u ded that t h e law entitled petitioners to suc h an order. In re Guan tanamo Bay Detaine eL i tiga tion , 581 F. Supp. 2d 33 (DC 20 08). The Court of Appeals held to the contrar y
. Kiyembav. Obama , 555 F. 3d 1022 (CADC 2009). An d this Court initially granted certiorari to re

solve the important q u estion whether a district cour t may order the release of an unlawfully held prisoner into the United States wh ere no othe r remedy i savailabl e
. Kiyembav. Obama , 558 U. S. ___ ( 2009). The Court subsequently learned that each of the re

maining petitioners had receiv ed and rejected at least two offers of resettlement. In light of these changed circu m stances, the Court vac a ted the Court of Appeals’ decision2 KIYEMBA v. OBAMA
Statement of B REYER , J. and remanded the case to the lower courts to “determine, in the firstinstance, what further proceedings in tha t court or in the DistrictCourt are necessary and appropri

ate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developmen ts.” Kiyembav. Ob am a , 559 U. S.

___, ___– ___ (2010) (per curiam )(slip op., at1–2). The Court of Appeals found that no further proceedings were necessary and reinstated its prior opinionas modified. 605 F. 3d 1046 (CADC 2010) (per curi am)

. Petitioners have asked this Court to review the Court of Appeal s’ decision. Judge Rog e rs, separately concur ring in the Court o f Appeals’ ju dgment on remand, pointed out th at petitioner s have “received two of fers of resettlement in countries [including Palau, which] the United States determined ‘appropriate.’ ” Id., at 1050, n. 3. She added that petition

ers have “neither alleg e [d] nor proffer[ed]” any evidence that accept ing these offers would have threatened them with a risk of “torture” or any “other harm,” the need to avoid which might provide reason t o beli eve the offers are not appropriate. Id. , at1050. At the same time, the Gov

ernment tells us that “if petitioners were to e x press inter

est, the Uni t ed Sta t es would agai n discuss th e matter with the govern ment of Pal au [and tha tit] continues to work to find other options for resettlem ent.” Brief i nOpposition 13, n. 7. In my vie w , these of fers, the la ckof any meaningful challenge as to their appropriate n ess, and the Govern

ment’s uncontested commitment to continue to work to resettle petitioners transform petitioners’ claim. Und e r present circumstances, I see n o Government-impose d obstacle to petitioners’ timely release and appropria t e resettlement. Accordin gly, I join i nthe Cour t’s denial of
c e r t i o r a r i

. Should ci rc umstan ces materiall ychan ge, how

ever, petitioners may of course raise their original issue (o r related issues) again in the lower co urts and in this Court.