Question: What was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene ,  Ware v. Hylton or Boumediene v. Bush ?

Context paragraphs:
Habeas corpus in the Philippines: Habeas corpus ( ; Latin for "you [shall] have the body") is a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment.  In the Bill of Rights of the Philippine constitution, "habeas corpus" is guaranteed in terms almost identically to those used in the U.S. Constitution.  in Article 3, Section 15 of the Constitution of the Philippines states that "The privilege of the writ of "habeas corpus" shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it".

Military Commissions Act of 2009: The Military Commissions Act of 2009, which amended the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was passed to address concerns by the United States Supreme Court.  In "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008) the court had ruled that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was unconstitutional in suspending the right of detainees to "habeas corpus".  The court ruled that detainees had the right to access US federal courts to challenge their detentions.

Habeas Corpus Act 1867: The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 (sess.  ii, chap.  28, 14 Stat.  385 ) is an act of Congress that significantly expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus.  Passed February 5, 1867, the Act amended the Judiciary Act of 1789 to grant the courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus "in all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or any treaty or law of the United States."  Prior to the Act's passage, prisoners in the custody of one of the states who wished to challenge the legality of their detention could petition for a writ of habeas corpus only in state courts; the federal court system was barred from issuing writs of habeas corpus in their cases.  The Act also permitted the court "to go beyond the return" and question the truth of the jailer's stated justification for detaining the petitioning prisoner, whereas prior to the Act courts were technically bound to accept the jailer's word that the prisoner was actually being held for the reason stated.  The Act largely restored habeas corpus following its 1863 suspension by Congress, ensuring that anyone arrested after its passage could challenge their detention in the federal courts, but denied habeas relief to anyone who was already in military custody for any military offense or for having aided the Confederacy.

Algerian Six: The Algerian Six are six Bosnian men (five of them citizens with dual nationality), all born in Algeria, who had been imprisoned without charges at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since January 2002.  They filed for "habeas" corpus in United States federal court and their case reached the United States Supreme Court.  It ruled in "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008) that detainees and foreign nationals had rights to file for "habeas corpus" in federal courts.  Following his review of their cases, a US District Court judge ordered five of the Bosnians to be released based on insufficient evidence.

Jones v. Cunningham: Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment.  Prior to this, starting with "Pervear v. Massachusetts", 72 U.S. 475 (1866) , the court had maintained a "hands off" policy regarding federal interference with state incarceration policies and practices, maintaining that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.  Subsequently, in "Cooper v. Pate" (1964), an inmate successfully obtained standing to challenge the denial of his right to practice his religion through a habeas corpus writ.

Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863: The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, 12 Stat.  755 (1863), entitled "An Act relating to Habeas Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in Certain Cases," was an Act of Congress that authorized the president of the United States to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in response to the United States Civil War and provided for the release of political prisoners.  It began in the House of Representatives as an indemnity bill, introduced on December 5, 1862, releasing the president and his subordinates from any liability for having suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval.  The Senate amended the House's bill, and the compromise reported out of the conference committee altered it to qualify the indemnity and to suspend habeas corpus on Congress's own authority.  Abraham Lincoln signed the bill into law on March 3, 1863, and suspended habeas corpus under the authority it granted him six months later.  The suspension was partially lifted with the issuance of Proclamation 148 by Andrew Johnson, and the Act became inoperative with the end of the Civil War.  The exceptions to his Proclamation 148 were the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona.

Boumediene v. Bush: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.  Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control.  The case was consolidated with habeas petition "Al Odah v. United States".  It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.  Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

Ware v. Hylton: Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.)  199 (1796) is a United States Supreme Court case where a divided court ruled that an article in the Treaty of Paris, which provided that creditors on both sides should meet "no lawful impediment" when recovering "bona fide" debts, took precedence and overruled a Virginia law passed during the American Revolution which had nullified such debts.  The full title of the case is Ware, administrator of Jones, Plaintiff in Error v. Hylton et al. It is also known as the British Debt case.

Habeas corpus in the United States: Habeas corpus ( ) is a recourse in law challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law.  A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions.  The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of "habeas corpus" shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Habeas Corpus Act 1862: The Habeas Corpus Act 1862 (20 & 26 Vict.  c.20) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that limited the right of the English courts to issue writs of "habeas corpus" in British colonies or dominions.  The act was passed in response to "Ex Parte Anderson", a case in the Canadian courts in which the English Court of King's Bench attempted to issue a writ of "habeas corpus" and have Anderson appear before an English judge.  While the court issued the writ, it felt that setting such a precedent would interfere with the "higher degree of Colonial independence".  As a result, the Act was passed, receiving the Royal Assent on 16 May 1862.

Supporting paragraphs: Boumediene v. Bush Ware v. Hylton
Answer: Boumediene v. Bush