I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4975 

To provide for habeas corpus review for unprivileged enemy belligerents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. 

SENSENBRENNER, Mr. CARTER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mrs. MILLER

of Michigan, Mr. COBLE, and Mr. LINDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for habeas corpus review for unprivileged enemy 

belligerents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be referred to as the ‘‘Homeland Pro5 tection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW FOR UNPRIVILEGED 

7 ENEMY BELLIGERENTS. 

8 Section 2241(e) of title 28, United States Code, is 

9 amended to read as follows: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4975 IH

1 ‘‘(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 

2 court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to grant re3 lief upon application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by, 

4 or on behalf of, an individual who is— 

5 ‘‘(A) not a citizen of the United States or an 

6 alien admitted for permanent residence to the 

7 United States; and 

8 ‘‘(B) detained by the United States after Sep9 tember 11, 2001, pursuant to a determination that, 

10 or pending a determination of whether or not, the 

11 individual is an unprivileged enemy belligerent or 

12 unlawful enemy combatant. 

13 ‘‘(2) The court, justice, or judge may grant relief oth14 erwise prohibited by paragraph (1) if the court, justice, 

15 or judge determines that the applicant has rebutted the 

16 presumption in paragraph (3). In making that determina17 tion, the court, justice, or judge shall take into account 

18 the totality of all evidence and information presented to 

19 it. 

20 ‘‘(3) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the 

21 United States has the authority to detain the individual 

22 under paragraph (1)(B). The applicant may only rebut the 

23 presumption by showing that any determination that the 

24 United States has such authority would be clearly erro25 neous. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4975 IH

1 ‘‘(4) The court, justice, or judge shall not order dis2 closure of classified evidence or information in enter3 taining an application for a writ of habeas corpus to which 

4 this subsection applies unless the evidence or information 

5 is relevant, exculpatory, and there is some indication that 

6 the disclosure of that evidence or information would enable 

7 the applicant significantly to alter the quantum of proof 

8 in favor of the applicant. 

9 ‘‘(5) The United States Court of Appeals for the Dis10 trict of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction 

11 over any appeal from a disposition of an application for 

12 a writ of habeas corpus to which this subsection applies. 

13 If a United States district court grants relief to the appli14 cant, the appeal on behalf of the United States shall be 

15 considered to be automatic unless waived by the United 

16 States. If the district court orders the release of the de17 tained individual pending that appeal, the order of release 

18 shall not take effect until the court of appeals has reviewed 

19 and upheld that order. The court of appeals shall hear 

20 and determine the appeal as expeditiously as possible. 

21 ‘‘(6) A term used in this subsection that is defined 

22 for the purposes of chapter 47A of title 10 shall have the 

23 same meaning in this subsection that it has for those pur24 poses.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS