108 | Towards the Closure of Guantanamo C. Prison conditions and access to justice 267. In Boumediene the U.S. Supreme Court declined to address the scope of conditions of confinement claims. Therefore, in the aftermath of Boumediene, district court judges continued to give effect to Section 7(a)(2) of the MCA which bars judicial review of claims relating to conditions of confinement. 319 In Khadr v. Bush, the DC District Court asserted that “the Supreme Court appears to have left [the MCA’s bar on judicial review of conditions of detention] undisturbed.” 320 In addition, in re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation the Court held that Section 7(a)(2) of the MCA remains valid and strips it of jurisdiction to hear a detainee’s claims that “relat[e] to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement.”321 Therefore, habeas courts have thus far rejected challenges by Guantanamo detainees relating to their conditions of detention. 268. It should be noted, however, that federal courts have recently begun addressing some aspects of the conditions of detention. On February 11, 2014, a federal appellate court ruled for the first time that Guantanamo detainees could bring a habeas claim to challenge their conditions of confinement. The DC Circuit Court ruled in Aamer v. Obama that Guantanamo detainees may bring a habeas corpus action in federal court challenging their forced-feeding by the Government. 322 The Court revisited the MCA’s provision that purports to strip courts of jurisdiction over conditions of confinement claims. It ruled that Section 2241(e)(2), which continues in force after Boumediene, only barred non-habeas claims related to conditions of confinement and therefore had no impact on habeas claims. Given that the detainees brought a habeas claim covered by Section 2241 (e)(1), which was struck down by Boumediene, the Court ruled that the habeas claim survives and sent the case back to the district court for further consideration. 269. Further, as indicated in the previous chapter, on May 16, 2014, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the U.S. Government to temporarily suspend the forced feeding of Mohammed Abu Wa’el Dhiab and preserve all videotapes of the forced feedings and forcible cell extractions of the detainee. 323 Although it was later lifted, this was the first time such a suspension was ordered by a federal judge. 319 320 321 322 323 Congressional Research Service, Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court, February 3, 2010, p. 37. Khadr v. Bush, 587 F.Supp.2d 225, 235 (D.D.C., 2008). In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, 577 F.Supp.2d 312, 314 (D.D.C. 2008). Shaker Aamer v. Barack Obama, 13-5223 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Available at: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FFE0A48DE60BF3B985257C7C0053997D/$file/13-52231479439.pdf. See also, Gitmo Detainees May Assert Mistreatment Claims by Steven D. Schwinn. Available at: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2014/02/gitmo-detainees-may-assert-mistreatment-claims.html Reprieve, Press release, Judge orders US government to halt force-feeding of Guantanamo prisoner and preserve video evidence of his ordeal, May 16, 2014. Available at: http://www.reprieve.org/judge-orders-usgovernment-to-halt-force-feeding-of-guantaacutenamo-prisoner-and-preserve-video-evidence-of-abuse.html Organization of American States | OAS