Opinion ID: 187118
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Remedial Authority

Text: The district court held, and the Government argues, that in light of § 7(a)(2) of the MCA, the federal courts are without power to entertain Belbacha's motion seeking temporarily to enjoin his transfer from Guantánamo to Algeria. Section 7(a)(2) strips the courts of their jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action . . . relating to any aspect of the . . . transfer of a detainee. It does not displace their remedial authority, pursuant to the All Writs Act, to issue an auxiliary writ in aid of a jurisdiction already existing, see Adams, 317 U.S. at 273, 63 S.Ct. 236, here the jurisdiction to determine whether § 7(a) is constitutional. See United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 293, 67 S.Ct. 677; see, also Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534-35, 119 S.Ct. 1538, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (1999) (All Writs Act empowers court to issue writs in aid of its existing statutory jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that jurisdiction). Precedents of the Supreme Court compel the conclusion that the federal courts' remedial powers are intact. Califano v. Yamasaki 442 U.S. 682, 705, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979) (Absent the clearest command to the contrary from Congress, federal courts retain their equitable power to issue injunctions in suits over which they have jurisdiction); FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 608, 86 S.Ct. 1738, 16 L.Ed.2d 802 (1966) (In the absence of explicit direction from Congress, court retains authority pursuant to All Writs Act to preserve status quo when necessary to protect its own jurisdiction); Scripps-Howard Radio v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 11, 62 S.Ct. 875, 86 L.Ed. 1229 (1942) (unless Congress clearly evinces a contrary intent, court is presumed to have power to maintain status quo in order to preserve jurisdiction). [] Otherwise, Belbacha's transfer would make it impossible for the district court to entertain his claim to relief that the Constitution might guarantee. Cf. Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603, 108 S.Ct. 2047, 100 L.Ed.2d 632 (1988) (declining to read statute to deprive court of jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claim). Our orders in Rahman v. Bush, No. 07-1204 (June 19, 2007), and Khalif v. Gates, No. 07-1215 (June 22, 2007), which issued prior to the grant of certiorari in Boumediene, and in which we declined to maintain the status quo in order to preserve our jurisdiction over actions brought pursuant to the DTA, are not to the contrary. Rahman and Khalif relied upon § 1005(e)(2) of the DTA, subsection (D) of which extinguishes this court's jurisdiction under the DTA upon the release of [an] alien from the custody of the Department of Defense. To read that provision as leaving intact our authority to bar a transfer in order to preserve our jurisdiction over an action pursuant to the DTA, as Rahman and Khalif had argued, would have contravened the intent of the Congress. Although our orders also cited § 7(a)(2) of the MCA, that provision serves only to make § 1005(e)(2) of the DTA the exclusive action for detainees; it does not abridge our remedial powers. Hamlily v. Gates, No. 07-1127 (July 16, 2007), which issued after certiorari was granted in Boumediene, cited only Rahman and Khalif, and is inapposite for the same reasons. []