District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in Abdullah
In 2010, Yemeni detainee Hani Abdullah had sought a preliminary injunction from the district court. He argued that the United States had to treat him in accordance with an executive agreement concluded between the United States and Yemen, which obligated the parties to treat each others' nationals in accordance with international law.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
In 2010, Yemeni detainee Hani Abdullah had sought a preliminary injunction from the district court. He argued that the United States had to treat him in accordance with an executive agreement concluded between the United States and Yemen, which obligated the parties to treat each others' nationals in accordance with international law. According to Abdullah, that law (among other things) proscribed his indefinite detention.
The motion nevertheless went unaddressed by the district court; the detainee thus recently filed a supplemental memorandum regarding the matter, and even asked the D.C. Circuit to order the district court to resolve his long-pending request for preliminary relief.
Those efforts prompted action, apparently. Yesterday the district court rejected the detainee's bid. The essence of its order, excerpted below, is that Abdullah has not met the legal requirements for a preliminary injunction:
Abdullah invests the bulk of his efforts in arguing that the Yemen agreement can provide the basis for relief. Even if he is right, he reduces his efforts regarding the remaining factors to little more than saying “[t]he familiar test for the grant of interim injunctive relief is set out in the margin.” See Petitr.’s Mot. at 39; and see Reply at 13-14. If Abdullah seeks pre-adjudication release, he has not made any showing that his case is one where pre-adjudicative release is necessary to effectuate habeas. Nor has he shown a lesser harm to the respondents if they cannot regain his custody should habeas be ultimately found unwarranted, or likewise that the public interest would favor the release now on an as-of-yet unadjudicated habeas claim. If Abdullah does not seek preadjudicative release, he has not explained what irreparable injury he faces outside of the injuries addressed by the merits of underlying habeas petition itself if his order is not granted, and he has not explained how the order he seeks would rectify that injury. Nor has he shown the public interest and a lesser harm in precluding the executive from making assessments about the stability and safety of nations to which detainees might be transferred.
Wells C. Bennett was Managing Editor of Lawfare and a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to Brookings, he was an Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP.
.jpg?sfvrsn=d5e57b75_5)
