April, 06 2009, 01:09pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
David
Lerner, Riptide Communications, 212.260.5000
17 Innocent Uighurs Detained at Guantanamo Ask Supreme Court for Release
Supreme Court Asked to Determine Whether an Illegally Imprisoned Detainee is Entitled to a Remedy
WASHINGTON
Today, lawyers
for 17 Uighurs imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay asked the Supreme Court to recognize
that the right to habeas corpus requires a remedy when a court finds that an
individual is wrongly detained. The petition for the writ of certiorari, filed
at the Supreme Court, asks for the Uighurs release from the detention center,
where they have been detained since 2002. If the Court agrees to hear Kiyemba v. Obama, this would be the first
time that it hears a Guantanamo case since deciding the landmark Boumediene v. Bush in June 2008.
"We now have asked the Supreme
Court to hear the Uighur cases, and rule that the writ of habeas corpus
guarantees to the innocent not just a judge's learned essay but something
meaningful - their release," said Sabin
Willett, of Bingham McCutchen, an attorney for the Uighur detainees.
In October 2008, D.C. District
Court Judge Ricardo Urbina ordered the U.S. government to release 17 wrongly-imprisoned
Guantanamo detainees into the United States. The men, Uighurs
from China, had been imprisoned without
charge for over seven years. The U.S. government has acknowledged it neither had
the authority to detain them nor could it release them to China because of
a risk of torture. However, on February 18, 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed the decision and held that the indefinite detention of the
men could continue. The men have now asked for the Supreme Court to review
the case and find, as the District Court did, that their "release into the
continental United States is the only possible effective remedy."
"This is now President Obama's
Guantanamo. If he is truly committed to closing the detention center, these men
should be on a plane to restart their lives in the United States," said Emi MacLean, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). "The U.S. government has
acknowledged that these 17 men are wrongly imprisoned and have nowhere safe to
go Seven years is too long for such a grand mistake to go without a
remedy."
The petition
reads: "This Court has already held that imprisonment the Executive cannot
show to be authorized by law is a particular wrong that does have a remedy, and
that remedy is release."
For a copy of the petition or to
learn more about Kiyemba v. Obama,
click
here.
CCR has led the legal battle over Guantanamo for the last six
years - sending the first ever habeas attorney to the base and sending the first
attorney to meet with a former CIA "ghost detainee" there. CCR has been
responsible for organizing and coordinating more than 500 pro bono lawyers
across the country in order to represent the men at Guantanamo, ensuring that
nearly all have the option of legal representation. In addition, CCR has been
working to resettle the approximately 60 men who remain at Guantanamo because
they cannot return to their country of origin for fear of persecution and
torture.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
'Cruel and Unconstitutional': Trump, RFK Jr. Escalate War on Trans Youth With Threat Against US Hospitals
"These proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families," said one critic.
Dec 18, 2025
President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday unveiled new policies aimed at cutting transgender minors off from gender-affirming care.
As reported by the New York Times, Kennedy announced new proposed rules that would bar Medicare and Medicaid from sending any funds to hospitals that carry out gender-affirming care on transgender minors, a move that would essentially force these facilities to shut down given that spending from those two programs account for nearly half of all spending on hospital care.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, warned during a news conference announcing the proposed rules that hospitals are "going to pay a very steep price" if they continue providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Many hospitals throughout the US are already under financial strain while bracing for the impact of the Medicaid cuts in this year's Republican-passed budget law, which are projected to total $1 trillion over the next decade.
Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), slammed Trump administration health officials for their "unprecedented actions and harmful rhetoric" while announcing the new proposed rules, which she described as a vast overreach by the federal government.
"These rules are a baseless intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," said Kressly. "Patients, their families, and their physician—not politicians or government officials—should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them. The government’s actions today make that task harder, if not impossible, for families of gender-diverse and transgender youth."
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, hammered the Trump administration for being "relentless in denying healthcare to this country, and especially the transgender community."
"Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and well-being of their children," Robinson added. "But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe."
The ACLU wasted no time in announcing that it would sue the administration if it goes forward with enacting the proposed rules, which it described as an unconstitutional attack on healthcare practices that have been endorsed by both the the American Medical Association and the AAP.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, accused the administration of launching "cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families."
"By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not 'protecting' anyone," Strangio added. "It is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain. Healthcare decisions belong to families and their doctors, not politicians. The latest proposals from the administration would force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FTC Opens Investigation Into Instacart Pricing After 'Bombshell Report'
Groundwork Collaborative revealed this month that artificial intelligence-enabled pricing experiments used by the shopping app have charged users up to 23% more than others for the same products.
Dec 18, 2025
The executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, the advocacy group behind a "bombshell report" that exposed Instacart's artificial intelligence-powered pricing schemes, welcomed the news that the federal government US opening an investigation into the business practice, and urged the Federal Trade Commission to follow the probe with concrete consumer protection actions.
The FTC told Gizmodo that "like so many Americans, we are disturbed by what we have read in the press about Instacart’s alleged pricing practices.”
Groundwork joined Consumer Reports and More Perfect Union in examining Instacart's practice, using the AI pricing software Eversight, of quoting different prices to different shoppers using the company's app, which allows people to order groceries and send a shopper to pick them up.
Some customers at a Safeway in Seattle were charged a price that was 23% higher than other shoppers for Skippy peanut butter, Oscar Mayer turkey, and Wheat Thins crackers. In Washington, DC, customers using the Insacart app saw eggs priced at $3.99, while others who logged on at the exact same time were charged $4.79 for the same brand at the same store.
Instacart has the ability to change prices based on data such as ZIP code or income, though the groups did not find it is currently using that information in its pricing experiments.
Groundwork noted that the scheme is taking place as American families are already struggling to afford groceries, electricity, healthcare, and other essentials.
“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork. "While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers. Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”
In its report, the group called on the FTC to take action under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair methods of competition," or to bring enforcement cases or initiate rulemaking to officially classify AI-enabled pricing strategies as "unfair and deceptive" strategies.
The progressive think tank Roosevelt Institute applauded Groundwork and its partners for the "major investigation" that pushed the FTC to act.
Instacart's shares dropped by about 7% following the news of the FTC probe.
On Thursday, the agency announced that Instacart would pay $60 million in refunds to settle separate allegations that it falsely advertised "free delivery" while charging a service fee, falsely advertised a "100% satisfaction guarantee" that suggested it would offer full refunds, and failed to disclose terms regarding Instacart+ membership.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No War With Venezuela,' Says Maine US Senate Candidate Graham Platner
"It should not be an option in our government to allow a failing presidency to just start a war because they feel like it's politically expedient," said the progressive running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
Dec 18, 2025
The progressive running to unseat Republican US Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is speaking out forcefully against President Donald Trump's march to war with Venezuela, warning of alarming parallels with the invasion of Iraq over two decades ago.
In a video posted to social media on Wednesday night, Graham Platner—a Marine Corps and US Army veteran who served multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan—said it is "terrifying" to witness the US government "yet again trying to lead us into an illegal war that is going to do absolutely nothing for the average American."
"What is happening in Venezuela should not fool you into thinking that we are under attack, that we are under threat from Venezuela," said Platner, who accused the increasingly unpopular Trump administration of falling back on the "most tried and true method of failing governments, which is to go start a war."
"This is why we need to claw back war powers from the executive branch," he added. "It should not be an option in our government to allow a failing presidency to just start a war because they feel like it's politically expedient. That shouldn't even be possible, and the only reason it is possible is that we have allowed it to become possible."
Watch:
Platner's remarks came a day after Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to launch military strikes inside Venezuela, announced a "total and complete" blockade on "sanctioned oil tankers" approaching and leaving the South American nation—a move that was widely condemned as an act of war.
"No war with Venezuela," Platner wrote on social media in response to the president's announcement, expressing a view shared by 63% of US voters, according to one new poll.
Platner's vocal condemnation of Trump's military aggression toward Venezuela and warnings about regime change contrast sharply with his electoral opponents' relative silence on the issue, which has drawn international alarm and outrage.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, Platner's establishment-backed competition in the Senate primary, told Common Dreams in a statement that "Congress should be exercising its oversight and war powers authority" to constrain Trump. The comments appeared to be Mills' first public statement on the potential military conflict with Venezuela.
"Unsurprisingly, the president's objectives and strategy are unclear as he drives us closer to a costly and unnecessary war," Mills said, adding that, "unlike Susan Collins," she would have supported a recent war powers resolution that nearly every Republican senator voted to block last month.
Collins, according to the Associated Press, gave opponents of the war powers resolution "the decisive 50th vote to defeat it" when it came up for a vote on November 6.
If passed, the measure would have required Trump to "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress."
"The power to wage war constitutionally was given to the legislative branch to make sure that this exact kind of scenario did not happen."
Senate opponents of Trump's military aggression toward Venezuela directly and his ongoing, deadly strikes on boats in international waters are not giving up on efforts to rein in the lawless president.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran who has warned Trump is on the verge of launching "Iraq War 2.0," introduced a resolution on Wednesday aimed at halting the president's campaign of extrajudicial executions in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
"The decision to use military force is one that requires serious debate, and the power to declare war unambiguously belongs to Congress under the Constitution,” said Gallego. “As an Iraq War veteran, I know the costs of rushing into an unnecessary war and that the American people will not stand for it.”
Platner echoed that sentiment in his video message on Wednesday.
"The power to wage war constitutionally was given to the legislative branch to make sure that this exact kind of scenario did not happen," said the US Senate candidate. "The only way that we can keep it from happening again is to make sure that the power to wage war returns to the representatives of the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


