Mammar Ameur v. Robert Gates , 759 F.3d 317 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              PUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-2011
    MAMMAR AMEUR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ROBERT M. GATES, in his individual capacity; DONALD RUMSFELD, in
    his individual capacity; PAUL WOLFOWITZ, in his individual
    capacity; GORDON ENGLAND, in his individual capacity; JAMES M.
    MCGARRAH, in his individual capacity; RICHARD B. MYERS, in his
    individual capacity; PETER PACE, in his individual capacity;
    MICHAEL GLENN MULLEN, “Mike”, in his individual capacity; JAMES
    T. HILL, in his individual capacity; BANTZ CRADDOCK, in his
    individual capacity; GEOFFREY D. MILLER, in his individual
    capacity; JAY HOOD, in his individual capacity; HARRY B. HARRIS,
    JR., in his individual capacity; MARK H. BUZBY, in his
    individual capacity; ADOLPH MCQUEEN, in his individual capacity;
    NELSON CANNON, in his individual capacity; MICHAEL BUMGARNER, in
    his individual capacity; WADE DENNIS, in his individual
    capacity; BRUCE VARGO, in his individual capacity; ESTEBAN
    RODRIGUEZ, in his individual capacity; DANIEL MCNEILL, in his
    individual capacity; GREGORY J. IHDE, in his individual
    capacity; JOHN DOES 1-100, in their individual capacities;
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:12−cv−00823−GBL−TRJ)
    Argued:   May 13, 2014                    Decided:   July 16, 2014
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in
    which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Motz joined.
    ARGUED: Gwynne Lynette Skinner, WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF
    LAW, Salem, Oregon, for Appellant. Sydney Foster, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.       ON
    BRIEF: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew M.
    Collette, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C.; Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    2
    AGEE, Circuit Judge:
    In     2003,    United      States         military        personnel     detained
    suspected      terrorist   Mammar       Ameur       at     a     military     base   in
    Afghanistan and, later, at a facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Although Ameur was determined to be an “enemy combatant,” he was
    eventually released to his native country of Algeria in 2008.
    After being released, Ameur brought suit in district court
    against   former     Secretary    of    Defense         Robert     Gates    and   other
    federal officials allegedly involved in his detention.                         Ameur’s
    complaint requested monetary damages under the Alien Tort Claims
    Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 1350
    , the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42
    U.S.C.    §§   2000bb–bb-4,      and    the       United       States   Constitution.
    Applying a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006
    (“MCA”), 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (e)(2), the district court dismissed
    the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    On appeal, Ameur contends that the district court erred in
    relying on an MCA provision that he argues the Supreme Court
    invalidated     in   Boumediene        v.       Bush,    
    553 U.S. 723
        (2008).
    Additionally, he maintains that the relevant MCA provision was
    unconstitutionally applied in his case, even if Boumediene did
    not explicitly invalidate the MCA statute.
    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district
    court’s decision.
    3
    I.
    A.
    Ameur’s complaint alleges that he was first detained in
    2002 by Pakistani authorities. 1          Later, Ameur was transferred to
    American military custody at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.               In
    March 2003, he was moved to detention facilities at the U.S.
    Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Ameur     alleges   that   he   suffered      mistreatment   and   abuse
    during each of his various detentions and transfers.              At Bagram,
    for instance, Ameur was purportedly beaten, attacked by dogs,
    subjected to harsh lights and music, interrogated, placed into
    stress   positions,      and    deprived      of     religious    materials.
    Similarly harsh abuse allegedly continued at Guantanamo until
    his release.
    In 2004, during his detention at Guantanamo, a Combatant
    Status Review Tribunal (“CSRT”) determined that Ameur was an
    “enemy combatant.” 2     As an “enemy combatant,” Ameur was found to
    1
    Because the district court disposed of Ameur’s complaint
    at the motion-to-dismiss stage, we “accept[] all well-pled facts
    as true and construe[] these facts in the light most favorable
    to    the    plaintiff.”        Nemet    Chevrolet,    Ltd.   v.
    Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 
    591 F.3d 250
    , 255 (4th Cir. 2009).
    2
    CSRTs   are  “executive-branch   tribunals convened to
    determine the status of Guantanamo detainees.” Janko v. Gates,
    
    741 F.3d 136
    , 138 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also Al-Nashiri v.
    MacDonald, 
    741 F.3d 1002
    , 1004–05 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing
    Department of Defense orders establishing CSRTs).
    4
    have been a “part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaida forces,
    or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the
    United States or its coalition partners.”                       Bismullah v. Gates,
    
    514 F.3d 1291
    , 1297 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Department of
    Defense regulations).           Although Ameur alleges that the CSRT’s
    decision was unsupported, his designation as an enemy combatant
    remains unchanged.
    In    August    2005,     an    Administrative          Review   Board     (“ARB”)
    recommended that Ameur was eligible for discretionary release, 3
    but   did     not     reverse        Ameur’s       enemy-combatant       designation.
    Rather, the ARB determination was premised “on an assessment of
    various factors, including the continued threat posed by each
    detainee.”          Janko,    741     F.3d        at   138    n.2   (quotation     marks
    omitted).     Ameur was eventually released and transferred to his
    native Algeria in 2008.
    B.
    Three   years     after    his     release,        in   2011,    Ameur   filed   a
    complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
    3
    The executive branch created ARBs “to assess annually the
    need to continue to detain each enemy combatant during the
    course of the current and ongoing hostilities.”       Associated
    Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 
    554 F.3d 274
    , 279 n.1 (2d Cir.
    2009). This process permits each enemy combatant at Guantanamo
    “to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States
    and its allies in the ongoing armed conflict against Al Qaida
    and its affiliates and supporters or to explain why his release
    would otherwise be appropriate.” 
    Id.
    5
    Washington.        His complaint contained claims against Gates, 21
    other current and former Department of Defense officials, and
    100 unnamed “John Doe” federal officials in their individual
    capacities.       The Washington district court first dismissed all
    of Ameur’s claims -- except those claims against Gates -- for
    lack of personal jurisdiction.                 Then, finding that many of the
    decisions    described      in     Ameur’s      complaint       were    made     at   the
    Pentagon, the district court transferred the case to the Eastern
    District of Virginia.
    Once   the    case    was    transferred,         Ameur    filed      an    amended
    complaint.    This amended complaint reasserted claims against all
    the   original      defendants,       contending         that      they     performed,
    endorsed, commanded, or supported various unlawful acts during
    Ameur’s   detention.         Ameur    alleged         that   these     acts      violated
    customary international law, the Geneva Conventions, the First
    and Fifth Amendments, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
    The complaint sought compensatory and punitive monetary damages.
    Invoking the Westfall Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2679
    , the United
    States    substituted      itself    for       all    defendants       as   to   Ameur’s
    claims    under     the    Alien    Tort       Claims    Act.        The    Government
    certified    that    the    defendants         were   federal     employees       acting
    within the scope of their employment when they performed the
    acts alleged in Ameur’s complaint.               See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2679
    (d).
    6
    The United States and the individual defendants then filed
    a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted.                         See
    Ameur v. Gates, 
    950 F. Supp. 2d 905
    , 913 (E.D. Va. 2013).                      The
    district court determined that 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (e)(2) deprived
    it of subject matter jurisdiction, as Ameur was detained as an
    enemy    combatant   and    his   claims      concerned     his    treatment   in
    detention.     
    Id.
       at    910–13;     see    also   
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (e)(2)
    (barring non-habeas-corpus actions brought by certain detainees
    challenging the conditions of their detention).                    Furthermore,
    the district court held that sovereign immunity barred Ameur’s
    international-law    claims,      as    the    United     States   had   properly
    substituted itself as a defendant to those claims. 4
    Ameur timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    II.
    This appeal considers the effect of one portion of the MCA
    codified at 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (e). Section 2241(e) provides:
    (1)   No   court,  justice,  or   judge   shall  have
    jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a
    writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an
    alien detained by the United States who has been
    determined by the United States to have been properly
    4
    In a footnote, the district court also noted that Ameur
    had failed to plead that he had administratively exhausted his
    international-law claims, providing an additional reason to
    dismiss them.
    7
    detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such
    determination.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
    section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
    (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge
    shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other
    action against the United States or its agents
    relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer,
    treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an
    alien who is or was detained by the United States and
    has been determined by the United States to have been
    properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting
    such determination.
    In Boumediene, the Supreme Court struck down § 2241(e)(1)
    as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
    But § 2241(e)(2), which bars plaintiffs like Ameur from bringing
    “any other action,” does not implicate habeas corpus.
    If § 2241(e)(2) applies to Ameur’s claims, then courts lack
    subject matter jurisdiction to hear them.               See, e.g., Aamer v.
    Obama, 
    742 F.3d 1023
    , 1028–29 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Al-Nashiri, 741
    F.3d at 1006–07.        When a district court dismisses for lack of
    subject   matter      jurisdiction,   as   in   the   case    before   us,   “we
    review the district court’s factual findings with respect to
    jurisdiction for clear error and the legal conclusion that flows
    therefrom de novo.”          In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 
    744 F.3d 326
    ,    333    (4th   Cir.    2014)   (quotation      marks   and   alteration
    omitted).       We must decide this jurisdictional issue before any
    others.       See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 
    523 U.S.
                                        8
    83, 94 (1998) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at
    all in any cause.” (quotation marks omitted)).
    Section 2241(e)(2)’s plain terms bar Ameur’s suit, and he
    does not argue to the contrary.                    Ameur’s action is one “other”
    than    habeas       corpus,    which   is         discussed    in    the     preceding
    subsection, § 2241(e)(1).           It is against “agents” of the United
    States, in that all the defendants were government personnel at
    the time of the relevant events.                   See Hamad v. Gates, 
    732 F.3d 990
    , 990–91, 995 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding that detainee’s suit
    against same defendants was “against the United States or its
    agents”).       The complaint relates only to Ameur’s “detention,
    transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” during
    his “detention by the United States.”                       And a CSRT panel has
    determined that Ameur was an “enemy combatant.”                       See Janko, 741
    F.3d    at     144     (holding     that       a     CSRT     determination      is   a
    determination by the United States under § 2241(e)(2)); Hamad,
    732 F.3d at 995 (same).            Finally, Ameur does not bring his suit
    under the identified provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act
    (“DTA”),      which     formerly    permitted         suits    seeking      review    of
    certain CSRT determinations and military commission decisions in
    the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.                       See DTA, Pub.
    L.   No.     109–148,    §     1005(e)(2)–(3),        
    119 Stat. 2680
    ,    2741–42
    (2005).
    9
    Conceding that his claims come within the plain terms of
    § 2241(e)(2),          Ameur     instead      argues       that   the     jurisdiction-
    stripping       provision      is    invalid.         He    posits   two       independent
    grounds for his position: (1) the Supreme Court has expressly
    invalidated § 2241(e)(2); or (2) even if the statute has not
    been directly rejected, it is nevertheless non-severable from
    § 2241(e)(1),            which         has          been      expressly           declared
    unconstitutional.         We address these arguments in turn.
    III.
    Initially, Ameur contends that the Supreme Court expressly
    struck down § 2241(e)(2) in Boumediene.                     We disagree.
    In    Boumediene,      the    Supreme       Court    addressed     an     entirely
    separate part of the MCA –- § 2241(e)(1), which solely concerns
    habeas       corpus.     The     Court     first     observed     that     §    2241(e)(1)
    stripped courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas actions brought
    by aliens held at Guantanamo.                 
    553 U.S. at
    736–38.              Then, after
    surveying the history of the writ, the Court determined that
    habeas corpus did extend to aliens held at Guantanamo.                                Because
    Guantanamo detainees were entitled to habeas review, the Supreme
    Court        concluded    that       § 2241(e)(1)’s         denial   of        that    right
    implicated Article I, section 9 of the Constitution –- often
    termed the Suspension Clause.                 Id. at 771; see also U.S. Const.
    art. I, § 9, cl. 2 (“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
    10
    shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
    Invasion the public Safety may require it.”).                The Court further
    concluded that aliens held at Guantanamo were not afforded any
    adequate substitute for habeas corpus, 
    553 U.S. at 792
    , and,
    lacking that substitute, Ҥ 7 of the [MCA], 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (e),
    operate[d] as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.”                    
    Id. at 733
    .
    Despite its unrestricted reference to § 2241(e) in that one
    sentence, the Supreme Court’s sole focus in Boumediene was the
    effect of the Suspension Clause on § 2241(e)(1), as the only
    matter before the Court was an application for a writ of habeas
    corpus.     But § 2241(e)(2) –- the section we are concerned with
    here -- relates strictly to actions “other” than habeas.                      For
    that    reason,    Boumediene     did     not      address   the   validity    of
    § 2241(e)(2).      And because § 2241(e)(2) does not limit, discuss,
    relate to, or otherwise touch upon the writ, it could not be
    said to “suspend” it.           Therefore, § 2241(e)(2) lacks any nexus
    to the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court in Boumediene.
    See Aamer, 742 F.3d at 1030 (“[S]ection 2241(e)(2) has no effect
    on habeas jurisdiction, and thus the Suspension Clause is not
    relevant    and    does   not    affect      the   constitutionality    of    the
    statute.” (quotation marks omitted)); see also, e.g., Swain v.
    Pressley,    
    430 U.S. 372
    ,    380–82      (1977)   (explaining     that   the
    11
    Suspension       Clause       is    violated        only    where    habeas       corpus     is
    rendered “inadequate or ineffective”).
    Even    so,    Ameur       seizes     on    some    of     the    Court’s     broader
    language       –-     for      instance,           the     quotation       recited      above
    referencing the entire MCA Section 7 -- and insists that the
    Court invalidated more than just the habeas-related provision of
    § 2241(e)(1). 5        Two of our sister circuits have already rejected
    this formalistic argument.                  We must do so as well.                See Hamad,
    732 F.3d at 1000 (“[T]he logic and context of the opinion make
    clear      that        the         Supreme         Court     was         addressing        only
    § 2241(e)(1).”);            Al-Zahrani       v.    Rodriguez,       
    669 F.3d 315
    ,    319
    (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene
    [struck]       the    bar    to     federal       court    jurisdiction       over    habeas
    claims, but . . . the reasoning of the Supreme Court applied
    only to the stripping of habeas jurisdiction.”).
    5
    Ameur also says that the Supreme Court in Boumediene
    expressly “rejected the argument that [§§] 2241(e)(1) and (e)(2)
    could be read apart or treated separately.”         (Appellant’s
    Opening Br. 16.) Ameur misreads Boumediene. As the Government
    notes, Boumediene suggested that the two subsections of
    § 2241(e) had to be read together for purposes of an effective-
    date provision.    See 
    553 U.S. at 737
    .      The Court did not
    anywhere intimate that the provisions were to be read together
    in any other instance or for any other purpose. As the district
    court explained, the Court’s discussion of the effective-date
    provision does not apply here because this case does not relate
    to the effective-date provision. See Ameur, 950 F. Supp. 2d at
    913.
    12
    Ameur’s broadest-possible-reading approach is inconsistent
    with the analysis that we undertake in applying Supreme Court
    opinions.     “[G]eneral expressions, in every opinion, are to be
    taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are
    used.”     Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 
    133 S. Ct. 511
    , 520 (2012) (quotation marks omitted); see also Armour & Co.
    v. Wantock, 
    323 U.S. 126
    , 133 (1944) (“[W]ords of our opinions
    are to be read in the light of the facts of the case under
    discussion. To keep opinions within reasonable bounds precludes
    writing into them every limitation or variation which might be
    suggested by the circumstances of cases not before the Court.”).
    Boumediene arose solely in the habeas corpus context, not in a
    case involving a basic claim for damages –- that is, a case like
    the one before us.       Boumediene relied on law exclusive to habeas
    corpus and therefore should be applied only to the habeas-corpus
    context in which it arose.
    In sum, the Supreme Court in Boumediene did not address,
    let alone invalidate, § 2241(e)(2).          “[T]o the extent that the
    Supreme Court in Boumediene . . . permitted further judicial
    examination   of   the   detention   of   enemy   combatants,   it   did   so
    using the limited tool of the constitutionally guaranteed writ
    of habeas corpus -- not an implied and open-ended civil damages
    action.”    Lebron v. Rumsfeld, 
    670 F.3d 540
    , 555 (4th Cir. 2012).
    13
    IV.
    In   the     alternative,       Ameur    argues       that    Boumediene
    invalidated      § 2241(e)(2)    by    implication      in    striking      down
    § 2241(e)(1).      He contends that §§ 2241(e)(1) and (e)(2) are
    non-severable, even though § 2241(e)(2) is a separate provision.
    In other words, Ameur posits that the separate subsections found
    in Section 7 of the MCA –- §§ 2241(e)(1) and (e)(2) -- must rise
    and fall together.
    Boumediene did not address severability; it had no reason
    to.    Nonetheless,     Ameur    maintains    that   “the    absence   of   any
    severability analysis in Boumediene supports the conclusion that
    the Court did not believe that the two subsections of § 2241(e)
    were severable.”        (Appellant’s Opening Br. 18.)              He cites no
    authority –- and we have found none -- supporting that kind of
    adverse    inference.       In    fact,     “[c]ourts    routinely     reserve
    judgment on severability, especially when, as in Boumediene, no
    party briefed the issue or raised it at oral argument.”                Basardh
    v. Gates, 
    545 F.3d 1068
    , 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2008).                     As Justice
    Thomas has explained, even the Supreme Court “often disposes of
    as-applied challenges to a statute . . . without saying anything
    at all about severability.”           United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 322 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting).               “Such decisions (in
    which the Court is silent as to applications not before it)
    might be viewed as having conducted an implicit severability
    14
    analysis.          A better view is that the parties in those cases
    could have raised the issue of severability, but did not bother,
    because (as is often the case) there was no arguable reason to
    defeat       the    presumption       of     severability.”          
    Id.
         (citation
    omitted).
    And indeed, Ameur’s argument faces a high hurdle in view of
    the    presumption        of   severability.            “Generally   speaking,      when
    confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit
    the solution to the problem.”                 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of
    N. New England, 
    546 U.S. 320
    , 328 (2006); accord Pittston Co. v.
    United States, 
    368 F.3d 385
    , 400 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing
    the    “background        presumption       that    when    an   application     of       a
    statute is determined to be unconstitutional, courts seek to
    preserve as much of the statute as is still consistent with
    legislative        intent”).        “Because      the    unconstitutionality        of    a
    part    of    an    Act   does      not    necessarily      defeat   or    affect    the
    validity of its remaining provisions, the ‘normal rule’ is that
    partial . . . invalidation is the required course.”                        Free Enter.
    Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 
    130 S. Ct. 3138
    , 3161
    (2010) (quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted).
    Applying the presumption of severability, we will find one
    statutory      provision       to    be    severable      from   another    unless       we
    encounter one of three limited circumstances.                        First, we must
    strike any provisions that are not themselves constitutionally
    15
    valid.    See Booker, 543 U.S. at 258.                   Second, we must invalidate
    a provision if it is incapable of “functioning independently.”
    Id.     And third, we cannot uphold a provision if its separate
    existence would be inconsistent with “Congress’ basic objectives
    in enacting the statute.”             Id. at 259.
    Ameur       suggests        that       all        three    of        these      limited
    circumstances exist here.                We find that none of the arguments
    that Ameur proffers has merit.
    A. Constitutional Validity
    Ameur   raises       four    distinct        challenges         to    § 2241(e)(2)’s
    constitutionality.               First,      he     suggests       that       the     statute
    unconstitutionally deprives him of access to courts.                               Second, he
    maintains that § 2241(e)(2) unconstitutionally directs the rules
    of decision in a case.                Third, he argues that § 2241(e)(2)’s
    focus on alien detainees violates equal protection principles.
    And     fourth,     he      says      that        the    section       amounts        to   an
    unconstitutional          bill   of   attainder.           All   of        these    arguments
    fail.
    1.
    Ameur       first     argues        that      Congress       deprived          him   in
    § 2241(e)(2)       of     any    forum    for      his     purported        constitutional
    violations, violating both separation-of-powers principles and
    due process.         To be sure, the Supreme Court has noted that
    “serious constitutional questions” may arise if a person is left
    16
    without    a    forum     for     adjudicating           his    constitutional       claims.
    See, e.g., Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 
    533 U.S. 348
    , 351 (2001).
    To resolve this case, however, we need not decide whether
    Congress can entirely foreclose constitutional claims, as Ameur
    asks only for monetary damages.                       “[T]he Constitution does not
    require    the      availability      of       such      a     remedy,   even      where   the
    plaintiff’s         claim        is   based         on       alleged      violations        of
    constitutional rights.”               Hamad, 732 F.3d at 1003; accord Al-
    Zahrani, 669 F.3d at 319–20; Davis v. District of Columbia, 
    158 F.3d 1342
    , 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Constitution does not
    mandate a damages remedy for all injuries suffered as a result
    of a constitutional violation.”).                     In other words, money damages
    are “not an automatic entitlement” anytime that constitutional
    rights have been violated.                Wilkie v. Robbins, 
    551 U.S. 537
    , 550
    (2007); accord Zehner v. Trigg, 
    133 F.3d 459
    , 462 (7th Cir.
    1997)   (“[T]he       Constitution         does       not      demand    an   individually
    effective remedy for every constitutional violation.”).
    Indeed, the Supreme Court has refused to imply a monetary
    remedy for constitutional violations in many cases.                             See Minneci
    v. Pollard, 
    132 S. Ct. 617
    , 622 (2012) (collecting cases and
    noting that “the Court has had to decide in several different
    instances      whether      to    imply    a   Bivens        action[,]    [a]nd      in    each
    instance       it   has     decided       against      the      existence     of    such    an
    action”); see also, e.g., Lebron, 670 F.3d at 555-56 (refusing
    17
    to recognize implied damages remedy for claimed constitutional
    violations at Guantanamo).          For instance, the Supreme Court has
    refused to recognize Bivens claims where Congress created an
    alternative remedial scheme to resolve those claims, see, e.g.,
    Schweiker v. Chilicky, 
    487 U.S. 412
    , 424-28 (1988), or where
    “special    factors”    --   such    as    concerns   over   interfering   in
    military affairs -- counsel against recognizing a new form of
    liability, see, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 
    483 U.S. 669
    ,
    681 (1987).         Given Congress’ clear intent to divert detainee
    treatment claims from federal court and into military tribunals,
    and given the obvious national security concerns such claims
    implicate, we have already concluded that constitutional claims
    brought by Guantanamo detainees are not cognizable under Bivens.
    See Lebron, 670 F.3d at 555-56 (“Congress rather than the courts
    should     decide     whether   a    constitutional     claim    should    be
    recognized in these circumstances.”). 6          As courts may decline to
    recognize an implied cause of action for money damages in these
    6
    At oral argument, counsel for Ameur noted that the
    complaint also sought “such further relief as the Court may deem
    just and proper.”    (J.A. 67.)   She suggested that this vague
    boilerplate phrase might provide a basis to find that Ameur
    sought more than monetary damages.          Nonetheless, counsel
    conceded that the crux of the complaint was monetary relief and
    was unable to define any additional relief that might be
    available.   We agree with the Government, then, that this suit
    is a suit for monetary damages.       Moreover, Ameur failed to
    present this argument in the district court or in his briefs in
    this Court, so “we hold that it was waived.” W. Va. CWP Fund v.
    Stacy, 
    671 F.3d 378
    , 389 (4th Cir. 2011).
    18
    circumstances,       then    surely          Congress      may     explicitly    deprive
    courts of jurisdiction to entertain those very same cases.
    “[W]hen Congress can validly extinguish a right to one or
    more     judicial    remedies,          it    can     also       take    away   judicial
    jurisdiction over suits in which plaintiffs seek remedies that
    Congress has permissibly precluded.”                       Richard H. Fallon, Jr.,
    Jurisdiction-Stripping Reconsidered, 
    96 Va. L. Rev. 1043
    , 1104
    (2010).     After all, “the right of access to federal courts is
    not a free-floating right, but rather is subject to Congress’
    Article    III    power     to    set    limits       on     federal     jurisdiction.”
    Roller v. Gunn, 
    107 F.3d 227
    , 231 (4th Cir. 1997).
    Ameur suggests that we find a constitutional entitlement to
    damages in these circumstances because former detainees may not
    look to other remedies such as a writ of habeas corpus or an
    injunction.       According to Ameur, money damages afford his only
    conceivable means of remedying the constitutional violations he
    suffered.        By depriving courts of jurisdiction to hear money
    damages claims, Ameur argues, Congress has altogether prevented
    him from vindicating his constitutional rights.
    But the Supreme Court has held that courts may be deprived
    of jurisdiction to hear damages claims even in cases where money
    damages    provide    the    plaintiff’s           only    means    of   recovery.    In
    Stanley, for example, the Court declined to recognize a damages
    remedy    even    though    the   plaintiff’s             only   possible   remedy   was
    19
    money    damages,       as        “congressionally             uninvited       intrusion        into
    military affairs by the judiciary is inappropriate.”                                    
    483 U.S. at 683
    .     “It is irrelevant,” the Court explained, “whether the
    laws    currently       on        the    books       afford         Stanley,    or     any     other
    particular   serviceman,                an    ‘adequate’           federal     remedy    for     his
    injuries.”        
    Id.
             The       Court’s      readiness         to    withhold    a     money
    damages   remedy        in    Stanley         --    even       where    it    was    “damages      or
    nothing,” 
    id. at 690
     (Brennan, J., dissenting) -- demonstrates
    that Congress may similarly withhold a damages remedy here.                                        We
    may not assume that a constitutionally mandated remedy exists
    for Ameur merely because he cannot locate a remedy elsewhere.
    See also Bush v. Lucas, 
    462 U.S. 367
    , 388 (1983) (stating that
    the    question    of        whether         to    imply       a    monetary    remedy       for    a
    constitutional violation “obviously cannot be answered simply by
    noting that existing remedies do not provide complete relief for
    the plaintiff”).
    Section    2241(e)(2)             thus      does    not       violate    separation-of-
    power   principles           or    due       process      by       denying    Ameur    access      to
    courts.
    2.
    Section      2241(e)(2)                    also     does         not         reflect        an
    unconstitutional         attempt             on    Congress’         part     “to     direct     the
    substantive outcome of litigation.”                                (Appellant’s Opening Br.
    26.)    Ameur premises this argument on United States v. Klein, 80
    20
    U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 146 (1871), in which the Supreme Court
    warned that Congress could not “prescribe rules of decision . .
    . in cases pending before [the Court].”                       We have narrowly read
    Klein to hold only that “Congress violates the separation of
    powers when it presumes to dictate how the Court should decide
    an issue of fact (under threat of loss of jurisdiction) and
    purports to bind the Court to decide a case in accordance with a
    rule of law independently unconstitutional on other grounds.”
    United States v. Brainer, 
    691 F.2d 691
    , 695 (4th Cir. 1982)
    (quotation marks omitted).                Section 2241(e)(2) does not speak to
    any   issue       of   fact   or    bind        the   Court    to    an   independently
    unconstitutional rule.             More obviously, Klein speaks to pending
    cases,   and      this   case      was    not      pending    when   Congress    enacted
    § 2241(e)(2).          See Miller v. French, 
    530 U.S. 327
    , 349 (2000)
    (characterizing Klein’s holding as limited to pending cases).
    Thus, for many reasons, Klein does not apply here.
    3.
    Ameur       next   raises          an   equal     protection        challenge   to
    § 2241(e)(2), noting that it applies only to aliens.                             In the
    equal-protection context, a “challenged classification need only
    be rationally related to a legitimate state interest unless it
    violates      a    fundamental       right       or   is     drawn   upon    a   suspect
    classification such as race, religion, or gender.”                           Giarratano
    v. Johnson, 
    521 F.3d 298
    , 303 (4th Cir. 2008).
    21
    Rational-basis        review      –-    not   strict    scrutiny,      as   Ameur
    argues –- is the correct standard to apply here.                            See, e.g.,
    Hamad,        732     F.3d      at   1005–06          (assessing        § 2241(e)(2)’s
    constitutionality under rational-basis test).                        Aliens detained
    as    enemy    combatants       enjoy     no    fundamental      right    to    a   money
    damages remedy.          Nor is the alienage classification found in
    § 2241(e)(2) a suspect classification.                      When Congress classifies
    based on alienage, courts give that choice leeway.                          See, e.g.,
    Korab v. Fink, 
    748 F.3d 875
    , 882 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Although
    aliens are protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection
    Clauses, this protection does not prevent Congress from creating
    legitimate distinctions . . . between citizens and aliens.”);
    United States v. Huitron-Guizar, 
    678 F.3d 1164
    , 1170 (10th Cir.
    2012) (“[C]ourts must defer to Congress as it lawfully exercises
    its    constitutional        power   to    distinguish        between     citizens     and
    non-citizens.”); cf. Mathews v. Diaz, 
    426 U.S. 67
    , 79-80 (1976)
    (“In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and
    immigration,        Congress     regularly          makes    rules   that      would    be
    unacceptable if applied to citizens.”).                      Thus, “[C]ongressional
    classifications based on alienage are subject to rational basis
    review.”       United States v. Ferreira, 
    275 F.3d 1020
    , 1025 (11th
    Cir.     2001)      (emphasis    omitted);          accord    City   of     Chicago    v.
    Shalala, 
    189 F.3d 598
    , 605 (7th Cir. 1999).
    22
    Section      2241(e)(2)              survives        rational-basis       review,    a
    “deferential” standard that asks only whether Congress had a
    “reasonable basis for adopting the classification.”                                Wilkins,
    734    F.3d    at   348.             That     “reasonable       basis”    is    evident    for
    § 2241(e)(2),         as        the      statute       is     meant      to    limit   court
    interference in our nation’s war on terror.                           See Hamad, 732 F.3d
    at 1006 (explaining that provision was meant to “ensur[e] that
    members of the armed forces are not unduly chilled in conducting
    the war on terror by concerns about foreign nationals targeting
    them with damages claims”); see also Mathews, 
    426 U.S. at
    81
    n.17 (describing how matters like “foreign relations, the war
    power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government”
    “are   so     exclusively            entrusted     to    the    political       branches   of
    government     as     to       be    largely    immune       from    judicial    inquiry   or
    interference” (quotation marks omitted)).
    In other contexts, courts have approved of Congress’ use of
    citizenship as a proxy for situations likely to involve foreign
    terrorism, which in turn trigger special concerns relating to
    foreign affairs and immigration.                        See, e.g., United States v.
    Lue,   
    134 F.3d 79
    ,          87   (2d   Cir.     1998)       (“Congress    rationally
    concluded      that        a        hostage     taking       within      our    jurisdiction
    involving a noncitizen is sufficiently likely to involve matters
    implicating foreign policy or immigration concerns as to warrant
    a federal criminal proscription.”).                         The same principle applies
    23
    here:     Congress     could     rationally         conclude     that     litigation
    involving non-citizen combatants poses a special risk of raising
    foreign relations, immigration, or military-related matters that
    courts are usually not equipped to address.                    Therefore, Congress
    appropriately confined those issues to other proceedings more
    closely tied to the political branches, while affording broader
    relief     to   citizens     (who      do    not    present    foreign     relations
    issues).
    In    addition,    the     decisions        that   Congress   made    here    are
    consistent      with   the     long-standing        differential       treatment   of
    enemy     aliens   during      times    of       war,   see,   e.g.,     Johnson    v.
    Eisentrager, 
    339 U.S. 763
    , 769–77 (1950), and reflect a rational
    Congressional attempt to deal with the threat of overburdened
    courts in a piecemeal fashion, Helton v. Hunt, 
    330 F.3d 242
    , 246
    (4th Cir. 2003) (explaining that legislatures are free to act
    “one step at a time, addressing . . . the phase of the problem
    which seems most acute to the legislative mind” (quotation marks
    omitted)).
    Ameur has not attempted to address any of these genuine
    interests.       Instead, he focuses on whether the classification
    was narrowly tailored.          “[U]nder rational basis review, however,
    the classification need not be the most narrowly tailored means
    available to achieve the desired end.”                  Zehner, 
    133 F.3d 459
     at
    24
    463.       Accordingly,         Ameur’s        equal       protection        argument        lacks
    merit.
    4.
    Lastly,    § 2241(e)(2)         is     not     a    bill      of    attainder.         “A
    legislative act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder if it
    singles     out    an       individual       or     narrow      class       of     persons     for
    punishment without a judicial proceeding.”                             Lynn v. West, 
    134 F.3d 582
    , 594 n.11 (4th Cir. 1998); see also United States v.
    Dorlouis,      
    107 F.3d 248
    ,     257      (4th     Cir.      1997)       (“A    Bill   of
    Attainder is a legislative determination of guilt which metes
    out    punishment       to     named    individuals.”).               Courts       apply    three
    general     tests       to     determine          whether       a    statutory         provision
    qualifies as a prohibited bill of attainder:                           (1) a “historical”
    test that looks to traditional forms of legislative punishment,
    (2) a “functional” test that looks to the purposes served by the
    bill,    and   (3)      a     “motivational”          test      that       looks       to   actual
    legislative motives.              See, e.g., ACORN v. United States, 
    618 F.3d 125
    , 136 (2d Cir. 2010); accord Citizens for Equal Prot. v.
    Bruning,    
    455 F.3d 859
    ,    869     (8th      Cir.       2006).         “[O]nly     the
    clearest          proof         could         suffice           to         establish           the
    unconstitutionality of a statute [on the ground that it is a
    bill of attainder].”             Communist Party of the U.S. v. Subversive
    Activities Control Bd., 
    367 U.S. 1
    , 82–83 (1961).
    25
    Section 2241(e)(2) is not a bill of attainder under any of
    these tests.
    Ameur     posits          that    precluding            persons       from      appearing     in
    courts amounts to a historic form of punishment, but does not
    point     to     any       case     involving             a    channeling         provision      that
    precludes particular types of claims from being brought.                                         Such
    jurisdictional limits are usually not viewed as a traditional
    “punishment.”              See    Hamad,       732        F.3d     at     1004   (“Jurisdictional
    limitations . . . do not fall within the historical meaning of
    legislative punishment.”); Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    513 F.3d 1244
    ,     1253       n.9    (11th        Cir.        2008)         (declining       to    find      that
    “jurisdictional rule” amounted to bill of attainder); Nagac v.
    Derwinksi, 
    933 F.2d 990
    , 990-91 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (same).
    As to the functional test, a statute passes that standard
    when     it     “reasonably             can     be        said      to     further       nonpunitive
    legislative purposes.”                  Nixon v. Admin. of Gen. Servs., 
    433 U.S. 425
    , 475-76 (1977).                As we have already explained, § 2241(e)(2)
    serves several legitimate ends:                               it channels military-related
    matters       into     military         courts,           keeps      federal      courts      out    of
    complicated foreign affairs questions, and limits the burdens
    that    could     flow       from       an    unlimited            right    of    litigation        for
    detainees.
    And     Section 2241(2)            passes          muster        under    the     motivational
    test.         Ameur    points       to        nothing         in    the    legislative        history
    26
    indicating       a   punitive    purpose.         Though    he     contends      that    the
    statute was passed with the intent to “reverse the holdings of
    the Supreme Court” (Appellant’s Opening Br. 30), these types of
    legislative overrides are unobjectionable so long as they stay
    within constitutional bounds –- and such congressional changes
    happen often.         See, e.g., Rivers v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 
    511 U.S. 298
    , 305 n.5 (1994) (“Congress frequently ‘responds’ to judicial
    decisions    construing         statutes,     and    does    so    for    a    variety    of
    reasons.”).          More to the point, statements of mere disagreement
    with     previous       Supreme       Court      decisions        do     not    establish
    “punitive” intent toward an individual or group.                              And, in any
    event, these kinds of statements would be insufficient evidence
    on their own.          See Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minn. Pub. Interest
    Research Grp., 
    468 U.S. 841
    , 855 n.15 (1984) (explaining that
    “isolated” statements from legislators “do not constitute the
    unmistakable         evidence    of   punitive      intent”       required     (quotation
    mark omitted)).
    Finally, we observe that § 2241(e)(2) does not meet the
    “naming” or “specificity” requirement for bills of attainder.
    “A     statute       with   open-ended        applicability,           i.e.,    one     that
    attaches     not       to   specified     organizations            but    to    described
    activities in which an organization may or may not engage, does
    not single out a particular person or group for punishment.”
    Hettinga v. United States, 
    677 F.3d 471
    , 477 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
    27
    (quotation marks omitted).                  The statute at issue here attaches
    to   past    and    future      conduct,          not      status    (or    some     proxy    for
    status, like past conduct alone).                           After all, the statute is
    triggered by unlawful combat against the United States.                                 See Ex
    parte     Quirin,        
    317 U.S. 1
    ,    30–31       (1942)        (explaining      the
    difference between lawful and unlawful combatants).                                This open-
    ended       classification         makes          us       even      more     certain        that
    § 2241(e)(2) is not a bill of attainder.
    * * *
    Section     2241(e)(2)         is        constitutional.              Therefore,      it
    satisfies the first prong of the severance standard.
    B. Independent Function
    Ameur     next    suggests      that          §    2241(e)(2)       cannot    function
    independently       because      it    cross-references              other    statutes       that
    may not be currently valid.                      But he never explains why a mere
    cross-reference          renders      the    whole         section    ineffective.           And,
    indeed, a reference-by-reference analysis reveals no reason to
    doubt    §    2241(e)(2)’s         independent             vitality    as     a    stand-alone
    statute.
    For instance, it does not matter that § 2241(e)(2) refers
    in its first clause to the DTA.                           True, the two referenced DTA
    provisions        are    no    longer        operative:           Congress     repealed       one
    paragraph and the D.C. Circuit -- the only circuit entitled to
    hear DTA claims -- nullified the other.                           See Bismullah, 
    551 F.3d 28
    at     1075    (finding          that     Boumediene         invalidated          DTA     section
    1005(e)(2) because Congress would not have intended DTA review
    to    supplement         an   existent         habeas       remedy);        National      Defense
    Authorization           Act   for    Fiscal      Year     2010,      Pub.    L.   111–84,      
    123 Stat. 2190
    , 2612 (repealing DTA section 1005(e)(3)).                                    But those
    changes only have the effect of mooting the “except” language in
    §    2241(e)(2)’s        introductory          clause,       not   §    2241(e)(2)        in    its
    entirety.       Put differently, changes in the DTA have simplified
    § 2241(e)(2):           courts      no   longer      need    ask     whether      a   suit     that
    falls within the ambit of § 2241(e)(2) might instead be brought
    under the DTA.
    The “other action” language -- which must be read as the
    converse      of   §     2241(e)(1)’s          habeas     language      --    also      does    not
    defeat § 2241(e)(2)’s independence.                         “A subsection of a statute
    is capable of functioning independently as a fully operative
    law,    even       if    it      must     be    understood         by    reference        to    an
    inoperative portion of the statute in order for its meaning to
    be    clear.”           Hamad,      732    F.3d      at     1001-02     (quotation         marks,
    citation,       and      alteration       omitted).            The      cross-reference          to
    § 2241(e)(1) serves merely a definitional purpose and does not
    negate § 2241(e)(2) by association.                         See, e.g., Leavitt v. Jane
    L., 
    518 U.S. 137
    , 142 (1996) (finding that one section’s cross-
    reference to earlier, invalid section did not establish “such
    29
    ‘interdependence’ that [the later section] becomes ‘purposeless’
    when [the earlier section] is unenforceable”).
    Finally, it does not matter that the Government now uses
    the   designation      “unprivileged          enemy    belligerent”            for    persons
    similarly situated to Ameur, rather than denominating them as
    “enemy combatants.”             10 U.S.C. § 948a.           Ameur acknowledges his
    designation       as   an      “enemy      combatant,”      and     §     2241(e)(2)         is
    triggered by that designation.                  Section 2241(e)(2) functions as
    an    independent      statute       and    meets     the   second        prong       of     the
    severability test.
    C. Congressional Objective
    Independence         aside,      Ameur      also     argues        that       allowing
    § 2241(e)(2) to stand alone would be inconsistent with Congress’
    basic    objectives       in    enacting     the    MCA.         Again,    we       disagree.
    “Congress’s overriding goal” in passing the MCA “was to limit
    the judicial review available to detainees.”                             Bismullah, 551
    F.3d at 1073; see also H.R. Rep. No. 109–664, pt. 1, at 27
    (2007)    (congressional         committee        indicating      that     it       wished    to
    “make    clear”    that     detainee       review    was    limited       to    two    narrow
    contexts); cf. Lebron, 670 F.3d at 554-55 (detailing Congress’
    efforts    to     constrain       judicial        review    in    areas        of    national
    security concern).             “Congress designed the direct review regime
    to limit judicial intervention and to consolidate review in one
    forum.”     Basardh, 
    545 F.3d at 1071
    .                    Therefore, we doubt that
    30
    Congress would prefer to open the floodgates to all sorts of
    detainee-related litigation merely because Boumediene required
    courts       to    allow     one    narrow      sub-class         of    cases     under     the
    Suspension Clause, a provision that does not even apply here.
    Ameur’s      contention       that      legislative        history      supports     his
    view    is    also    without       merit.          To    declare       a   provision      non-
    severable, legislative history must make it “evident that the
    Legislature would not have enacted those provisions which are
    within its power, independently of that which is not.”                                 Pittston
    Co., 368 F.3d at 400 (quotation marks omitted).                                  Here, Ameur
    cites just one instance where Congress removed a severability
    clause from the MCA and another when Congress refused to adopt
    one.         As     the     Government         notes,      both     instances          involved
    amendments in the nature of a substitution.                            See 152 Cong. Rec.
    19,928,      19,948       (2006)   (passing         amendment     without       severability
    clause); id. at 19,970 (rejecting amendment with severability
    clause).          We cannot say that Congress was focused on a minor
    provision         (that     is,    the    severability          clause)        while     making
    wholesale         changes    to    the      broader       statutory         scheme.       More
    importantly,          “congressional                inaction           lacks      persuasive
    significance because several equally tenable inferences may be
    drawn    from      such     inaction,       including       the    inference       that    the
    existing legislation already incorporated the offered change.”
    United    States      v.    Craft,       
    535 U.S. 274
    ,   287     (2002)    (quotation
    31
    marks and alteration omitted); see also Red Lion Broad. Co. v.
    FCC, 
    395 U.S. 367
    , 382 n.11 (1969) (“[U]nsuccessful attempts at
    legislation are not the best guides to legislative intent.”);
    Tenneco Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of W. Va., 
    489 F.2d 334
    , 338
    (4th   Cir.    1973)      (refusing       to    draw         an       adverse   inference       from
    Congress’ refusal to enact particular legislative provision).
    Lastly,     Ameur’s      argument        invites           us    to    draw   conclusions
    from the absence of a severability clause.                                   But “the ultimate
    determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence
    or absence of such a clause.”                       United States v. Jackson, 
    390 U.S. 570
    , 585 n.27 (1968).                “Congress’ silence is just that --
    silence       --    and       does    not       raise             a     presumption       against
    severability.”           Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 
    480 U.S. 678
    ,
    686 (1987).
    Section          2241(e)(2)        is        a        severable          statute         from
    § 2241(e)(1).            We   reject      all       of       Ameur’s         arguments    to    the
    contrary.
    V.
    The parties raise several additional points, which we find
    unnecessary        to    address     in   light         of    our       conclusion       that   the
    district court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint under the
    MCA.    See, e.g., Golden & Zimmerman, LLC v. Domenech, 
    599 F.3d 426
    , 433 n.2 (4th Cir. 2010) (“Because we have concluded that
    32
    the district court was correct in finding that it did not have
    subject matter jurisdiction . . ., we need not address [these]
    alternative argument[s].”).            “Jurisdiction is power to declare
    the   law,    and    when   it   ceases      to   exist,   the    only     function
    remaining . . . is that of announcing the fact and dismissing
    the cause.”     Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94.
    VI.
    For    these   reasons,    the    decision     of    the   district    court
    dismissing     Ameur’s      complaint     for     lack     of    subject    matter
    jurisdiction is
    AFFIRMED.
    33
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-2011

Citation Numbers: 759 F.3d 317, 2014 WL 3455741, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13553

Judges: Traxler, Motz, Agee

Filed Date: 7/16/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (41)

United States v. Jean Carlo Ferreira , 275 F.3d 1020 ( 2001 )

Johnson v. Eisentrager , 70 S. Ct. 936 ( 1950 )

Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities ... , 81 S. Ct. 1357 ( 1961 )

Minneci v. Pollard , 132 S. Ct. 617 ( 2012 )

Schweiker v. Chilicky , 108 S. Ct. 2460 ( 1988 )

Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc. , 114 S. Ct. 1510 ( 1994 )

Miller v. French , 120 S. Ct. 2246 ( 2000 )

United States v. Craft , 122 S. Ct. 1414 ( 2002 )

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 511 ( 2012 )

Kurt Zehner, Jerry Glenn, John Alvarado, Individually and ... , 133 F.3d 459 ( 1997 )

city-daniel-alvarez-sr-commissioner-of-human-services-and-morris-i , 189 F.3d 598 ( 1999 )

Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service , 121 S. Ct. 2268 ( 2001 )

tenneco-inc-a-corporation-and-texas-eastern-transmission-corporation-a , 489 F.2d 334 ( 1973 )

United States v. Stanley , 107 S. Ct. 3054 ( 1987 )

United States v. Wang Kun Lue, Chen De Yian , 134 F.3d 79 ( 1998 )

Leavitt v. Jane L. , 116 S. Ct. 2068 ( 1996 )

hicks-william-helton-dba-b-h-video-v-jeff-hunt-rutherford-county , 330 F.3d 242 ( 2003 )

david-l-lynn-jr-robin-dixon-lynn-rodney-lynn-roxanne-lynn-david-l-lynn , 134 F.3d 582 ( 1998 )

Giarratano v. Johnson , 521 F.3d 298 ( 2008 )

United States v. Huitron-Guizar , 678 F.3d 1164 ( 2012 )

View All Authorities »