Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014)
`
` Statement of BREYER, J.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
`
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
`
`
` that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
` ABDUL AL QADER AHMED HUSSAIN, PETITIONER
`
`
` v. BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF
`
`THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`
`
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
`
`
`COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
` No. 13–638. Decided April 21, 2014
`
`
`The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
`
` Statement of JUSTICE BREYER respecting the denial of
`
`certiorari.
`
`The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),
`
`passed in September 2001, empowers the President to “use
`all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
`organizations, or persons he determines planned, author-
`ized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that oc-
`curred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organiza-
`tions or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
`international terrorism against the United States by such
`nations, organizations or persons.” §2(a), 115 Stat. 224.
`In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004), five Members
`
`of the Court agreed that the AUMF authorizes the Presi-
`dent to detain enemy combatants. Id., at 517–518 (plural-
`ity opinion); id., at 587 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). In her
`opinion for a plurality of the Court, Justice O’Connor
`understood enemy combatants to include “an individual
`who . . . was part of or supporting forces hostile to the
`United States or coalition partners in Afghanistan and
`who engaged in an armed conflict against the United
`States there.” Id., at 516 (internal quotation marks omit-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`HUSSAIN v. OBAMA
`
` Statement of BREYER, J.
`
`
`ted). She concluded that the “detention of individuals
`falling into the limited category we are considering, for the
`duration of the particular conflict in which they were
`captured,” is “an exercise of the ‘necessary and appropriate
`force’” that Congress authorized under the AUMF. Id., at
`518 (emphasis added). She explained, however, that the
`President’s power to detain under the AUMF may be
`different when the “practical circumstances” of the rele-
`vant conflict are “entirely unlike those of the conflicts that
`
`informed the development of the law of war.” Id., at 521.
`
`In this case, the District Court concluded, and the Court
`of Appeals agreed, that petitioner Abdul Al Qader Ahmed
`Hussain could be detained under the AUMF because he
`was “part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban at the time of his
`apprehension.” 821 F. Supp. 2d 67, 76–79 (DDC 2011)
`(internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added);
`accord, 718 F. 3d 964, 966–967 (CADC 2013). But even
`assuming this is correct, in either case—that is, irrespec-
`tive of whether Hussain was part of al Qaeda or the Tali-
`ban—it is possible that Hussain was not an “individual
`
`who . . . was part of or supporting forces hostile to the
`United States or coalition partners in Afghanistan and
`who engaged in an armed conflict against the United
`States there.” 542 U. S., at 516 (emphasis added).
`
`The Court has not directly addressed whether the
`AUMF authorizes, and the Constitution permits, deten-
`
`tion on the basis that an individual was part of al Qaeda,
`or part of the Taliban, but was not “engaged in an armed
`conflict against the United States” in Afghanistan prior to
`his capture. Nor have we considered whether, assuming
`
`detention on these bases is permissible, either the AUMF
`or the Constitution limits the duration of detention.
`
`
`The circumstances of Hussain’s detention may involve
`these unanswered questions, but his petition does not ask
`us to answer them. See Pet. for Cert. i. Therefore, I agree
`with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2