Case: Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

2:02-cv-00439 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Filed Date: May 10, 2002

Closed Date: Oct. 12, 2004

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured by American military forces in Afghanistan as an alleged member of the Taliban. He was transported with his unit from Afghanistan to a prison in Afghanistan before being moved again to Guantanamo Bay. When American officials discovered that Hamdi was an American citizen, he was transported to the Norfolk Naval Brig. While detained in Norfolk, he was denied access to counsel.On May 10, 2002, the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia filed a pe…

On May 10, 2002, the Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Virginia filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 as “next friend” of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a detainee captured as an alleged enemy combatant during military operations in Afghanistan. Christian Peregrim, a private citizen, also filed a petition on behalf of Hamdi. Both petitions were filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. After a hearing on May 29, the district court consolidated the two petitions. The district court determined that the petitions were properly filed and ordered the Public Defender to have unmonitored access to Hamdi. The court mandated that 72 hours from the time of the decision, the Public Defender would interview Hamdi if Hamdi so desired. The government sought a stay pending appeal on May 31, which the Fourth Circuit granted.

On June 26, 2002, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. 294 F.3d 598. In an opinion written by Judge Wilkinson, the Court found that Hamdi was inaccessible and thus could not appear on his own behalf, but determined that neither the Public Defender nor Peregrim had a preexisting relationship with Hamdi to satisfy the second element of the “next friend” test. The Fourth Circuit did not specify how significant such a relationship must be to satisfy the test, but simply determined that the lack of any preexisting relationship failed the test. As such, the court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

While the Public Defender and Peregrim’s petitions were still pending, Hamdi’s father filed a separate writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 & 2242, also in the Eastern District of Virginia and also before Judge Doumar. The petition alleged that the government’s detention of Hamdi without charges, access to a judicial tribunal, or the right to counsel violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as an American citizen. The petition sought declaratory relief asserting the unlawfulness of Hamdi’s detention, injunctive relief to cease all interrogations of Hamdi during litigation, and the release of Hamdi from detention. On June 11, the Court determined that (unlike the Public Defender and Peregrim), under the Fourth Circuit's test, Hamdi’s father could proceed as “next friend” and appointed the Public Defender as counsel for Hamdi. The Court ordered that Hamdi, his father, the Public Defender, and an interpreter would have an unmonitored meeting. The district court stayed the order to allow the government to appeal.

On July 12, 2002, the Fourth Circuit again reversed and remanded the district court’s decision. 296 F.3d 278. This time, again in an opinion written by Judge Wilkinson, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court failed to consider the consequences of its order on national security. The Court stated that Hamdi had been classified by the government as an “enemy combatant,” which restricts his access to counsel. The Fourth Circuit noted the separation of powers implications in this case, and determined that the lower court did not grant proper deference due to the purported national security interests. The Fourth Circuit instructed the district court to consider the most cautious procedures first, on remand.

On August 5, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the petition. The defendants conceded that Hamdi’s status was subject to judicial review, but argued that it had provided sufficient factual basis for the district court to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus. The defendants attached a declaration from Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michael Mobbs to their response. The Mobbs Declaration “set forth . . . the sole evidentiary support” for Hamdi’s status as an unlawful enemy combatant. Relying on his involvement in the detention of enemy combatants and familiarity with the “facts and circumstances” of Hamdi’s capture, Mobbs said that Hamdi “traveled to Afghanistan” in July or August 2001, “affiliated with a Taliban military unit and received weapons training,” and was with his unit when it “surrendered” to the coalition forces. Judge Doumar, in an opinion decided on August 14, found that the declaration fell short of justifying Hamdi’s detention. 243 F. Supp. 2d 527. Judge Doumar acknowledged the deference afforded to political branches in matters of military affairs, but also determined that courts are entitled to judicial review when military designations of individuals infringe on constitutional liberties of American citizens. The court found that the Mobbs Declaration (see text of Mobbs Declaration here), only two pages long, failed to adequately explain why Hamdi was being detained or the authority that a “Special Advisor” possesses in regards to classification of enemy combatants. As such, Judge Doumar found the document was insufficient to determine whether the screening criteria used to classify Hamdi violated the detainee’s Fifth Amendment rights. In order to conduct a meaningful judicial review, the district court ordered the defendants to produce additional documents related to Hamdi’s detention, including Hamdi’s statements from interviews, the names of interrogators who questioned Hamdi, and information about the circumstances of Hamdi’s capture. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal on August 19 and moved to stay the proceedings.

In an opinion written by Judge Wilkinson on January 8, 2003, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the petition. 316 F.3d 450. Hamdi’s petition and various amici argued for relief on two legal grounds. First, they argued that there is no congressional sanction for his incarceration, and therefore 18 U.S.C. § 4001 (“[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”) prohibits his continued detention. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, finding that Congress authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those that planned or aided in the terrorist attacks. The Court stated that the detention of enemy combatants prevented them from rejoining the enemy forces, and alleviated American military commanders of the need to litigate the circumstances of capture in the midst of armed conflict. Second, the petitioners argued that Hamdi’s detention violated Article 5 of the Geneva Convention. The Court rejected this argument too, finding that the Geneva Convention is not self-executing. Having rejected both forms of relief sought by petitioners, the court also determined that the district court’s production order could not stand. The court noted the district court’s production order risked “standing the warmaking powers of Articles I and II on their heads.” Such extensive production related to sensitive matters, the Fourth Circuit found, would be too costly in terms of efficiency and morale of American forces. Finally, when deciding whether to remand with orders to dismiss or proceed further, the Fourth Circuit determined that the Mobbs Declaration was sufficient justification for detention and ordered the petition to be dismissed. The authority for Hamdi’s detention derived from the President’s war power under Article II, Section 2. When it applied a deferential review to the Mobbs Declaration, the Fourth Circuit found it sufficient to support Hamdi’s continued detention. The Court determined that Hamdi could not rebut the government’s factual assertions in an Article III court because doing so would encroach into the executive branch’s military powers.

On July 9, 2003, the Fourth Circuit denied the petitioners’ motion for rehearing en banc. 337 F.3d 335. Judge Wilkinson and Judge Traxler wrote concurring opinions explaining their reasons for denying the petitioners’ motion. Judge Luttig and Judge Motz filed dissenting opinions articulating why they would have granted the motion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 9, 2004. 124 S. Ct. 981.

The Supreme Court published its decision on June 28, 2004 in which it vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. 542 U.S. 507. Justice O’Connor wrote the plurality opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer. The defendants defined “enemy combatant” in this situation as someone who was “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” in Afghanistan and who allegedly “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” Therefore, the Court addressed the narrow question of whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is not authorized.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Justice O’Connor found that members of the Taliban would fall within the category of people that Congress considered in passing the AUMF, and therefore the President has the authority to detain them as part of his “necessary and appropriate” powers to prevent them from returning to the battlefield. This legislative authority extends only to those individuals determined to be enemy combatants with sufficient clarity; the Court did not opine on whether detention is lawful where that designation was disputed.

Assuming that Hamdi was legally detained, Justice O’Connor considered whether he was afforded his procedural due process rights. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test, the Court found that Hamdi’s private interest is the most elemental of liberty interests--the interest in being free from physical detention by one’s own government. On the other side of the scale, the Court noted the Government’s weighty interests in ensuring that enemy combatants do not return to the battlefield. The Court held that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decision maker.

Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote an opinion that concurred in the judgment, but dissented in the reasoning. Justice Souter found that Hamdi’s detention was forbidden by 18 U.S.C. § 4001, and therefore he determined that the other constitutional questions reached by the plurality opinion were unnecessary.

Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Stevens which argued that, based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus, or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. But Justice Scalia found that it was improper for the Court to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi's detention.

Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissenting opinion that essentially affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s broad view of executive power, and found the judicial branch lacking in the expertise and capacity needed to second-guess the executive’s wartime decision.

On remand, Hamdi filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 25, 2004. On October 5, the Court ordered that the government either return Hamdi to Saudi Arabia or else present him for an evidentiary hearing along with copies of all statements made by Hamdi. The government elected to return Hamdi to Saudi Arabia, and the evidentiary documents remained under seal. The case was dismissed with prejudice after the parties settled on October 12, 2004. The settlement agreement included provisions outlining Hamdi's return to Saudi Arabia, his renunciation of terrorism and the Taliban, and stipulations around future travel restrictions for Hamdi. The case is now closed.

	Document
2:02-cv-00439	Docket	Dec. 11, 2006	Dec. 11, 2006 Docket
13 02-06827	Opinion Hamdi v. Rumsfeld U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	June 26, 2002	June 26, 2002 Order/Opinion 294 F.3d 598
21 02-06895	Opinion Hamdi v. Rumsfeld U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	July 12, 2002	July 12, 2002 Order/Opinion 296 F.3d 278
43 2:02-cv-00439	Order Hamdi v. Rumsfeld	Aug. 16, 2002	Aug. 16, 2002 Order/Opinion 243 F.Supp.2d 527
02-07338	Opinion Hamdi v. Rumsfeld U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	Jan. 8, 2003	Jan. 8, 2003 Order/Opinion 316 F.3d 450
02-07338	Order Hamdi v. Rumsfeld U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit	July 9, 2003	July 9, 2003 Order/Opinion 337 F.3d 335
03-06696	Opinion Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court of the United States	June 28, 2004	June 28, 2004 Order/Opinion 542 U.S. 507
86 2:02-cv-00439	Stipulation of Dismissal Hamdi v. Rumsfeld	Oct. 12, 2004	Oct. 12, 2004 Settlement Agreement

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Judicious Balancing at the Intersection of the Executive's Power to Detain and the Citizen-Detainee's Right to Due Process James B. Anderson	In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court held that a citizen detained by the Government as an enemy combatant is entitled under due process to a meaningful opportunity to contest the fac…		https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/...
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Oral Arguments	The Oyez page for Hamdi v. Rumsfeld offers a variety of information related to the Supreme Court portion of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, including a link to oral arguments.	April 28, 2004	April 28, 2004 https://www.oyez.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	PETITION for writ of habeas corpus; FILING FEE $5.00; RECEIPT #34655 (vwar) (Entered: 06/11/2002)	June 11, 2002	June 11, 2002
	CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge James E. Bradberry (vwar) (Entered: 06/11/2002)	June 11, 2002	June 11, 2002
2	ORDER that the petition be filed; further ordering that this case and case 2:02cv348 and 2:02cv382 be consolidated; ordering that this case be consolidated with those cases subject to the USCA for the 4th Circuit allowing such consolidation; ordering that the federal public defender's office and/or Frank Dunham and/or Larry Shelton be appointed counsel for the petitioner; ordering that the respondents answer this order to show cause by 12:00 noon on 6/17/02; ordering that the respondents allow either Frank Dunham or Larry Shelton the opportunity to meet with Yaser Esam Hamdi within 72 hours of the entry of this order or immediately following the elimination of the any stay of this order, an interpreter with the appropriate government security clearance will be allowed to attend the meeting; ordering that this order is stayed until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 6/14/02 to allow the respondents an opportunity to appeal this order or if the USCA allows a consolidation with the other pending cases until further order of the Court of Appeals, entered and filed 6/11/02 ( signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar ) Copies Mailed: 6/11/02 [EOD Date: 6/11/02] (vwar) (Entered: 06/11/2002)	June 11, 2002	June 11, 2002
	CASE REFERRED to Mag Judge James E. Bradberry (afor) (Entered: 04/22/2004)	June 11, 2002	June 11, 2002
3	U.S. Marshals return of service, Returned Executed as to Donald H. Rumsfeld, Commander W.R. Paulette 6/12/02 Answer due on 8/12/02 for Commander W.R. Paulette, for Donald H. Rumsfeld (jcow) (Entered: 06/12/2002)	June 12, 2002	June 12, 2002
4	ORDER that the petition be served upon the respondents and the US Attorney, directing the clerk to forward copies of both the petition and this order by fax and US mail to all counsel of record in the consolidated action, to Gregory Garre of the US Department of Justice, to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and to Yaser Esam Hamdi, further directing the clerk to forward a copy of both the petition and this order to the US Marshal for service of both upon the respondents and the US Attorney; directing the US Marshal's office to serve both the petition and this order upon the respondents and the US Attorney, entered and filed 6/12/02 ( signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar ) Copies Mailed: 6/12/02 [EOD Date: 6/12/02] (jcow) (Entered: 06/12/2002)	June 12, 2002	June 12, 2002
5	NOTICE OF APPEAL by Donald H. Rumsfeld, Commander W.R. Paulette (jcow) (Entered: 06/13/2002)	June 13, 2002	June 13, 2002
6	Copy of USCA Order Granting the emergency motion for temporary stay and staying the district court's order of 6/11/02, pending this Court's ruling on appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal of that order; directing appellees to file a response to the motion for stay pending appeal to be received by the clerk no later than 2:00pm on 6/14/02. (jcow) (Entered: 06/13/2002)	June 13, 2002	June 13, 2002
7	Copy of USCA Order Granting a stay of the district court's June 11 order in this case, the Court further stays all proceedings before the district court in connection with this detainee until resolution of this appeal and appeal No. 02 − 6827; all stays shall remain in effect pending further order of this Court; directing the parties to file briefs on the merits of the appeal. (jcow) (Entered: 06/17/2002)	June 17, 2002	June 17, 2002
8	U.S. Marshal Service Process form Returned Executed as to Donald H. Rumsfeld, Commander W.R. Paulette 6/13/02 (jcow) (Entered: 06/18/2002)	June 18, 2002	June 18, 2002
	USCA Case Number Re: [5 − 1] appeal by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld CASE MANAGER: Lisa Jernigan USCA NUMBER: 02 − 6895 (jcow) (Entered: 06/19/2002)	June 19, 2002	June 19, 2002
9	Copy of USCA Order directing tht oral argument in appeal No. 02 − 6895 be scheduled for 6/25/02 at 2:30 (jcow) (Entered: 06/21/2002)	June 20, 2002	June 20, 2002
10	Two U.S. Marshals Service process receipt and return forms Returned Executed as to Donald H. Rumsfeld 6/12/02 (jcow) (Entered: 06/21/2002)	June 21, 2002	June 21, 2002
11	SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Donald H. Rumsfeld 6/19/02 (jcow) (Entered: 06/27/2002)	June 27, 2002	June 27, 2002
12	Advanced copy of Opinion of USCA re: [5 − 1] appeal by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld − REVERSED AND REMANDED by published opinion (lbax) Modified on 07/17/2002 (Entered: 07/16/2002)	July 15, 2002	July 15, 2002
13	TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS for dates of 7/18/02, before USDJ Robert G. Doumar, OCR − Penny C. Wile (vwar) (Entered: 07/18/2002)	July 18, 2002	July 18, 2002
14	Court Proceedings: RGD, USDJ. Counsel appeared. Came on for scheduling conference. Govt. to answer petition on or before 12:00 p.m., 7/25/02; replies due on or before 12:00 p.m., 7/30/02. Govt. to file any motion to terminate appointment of counsel on or before 12:00 p.m., 7/23/02; replies due on or before 7/24/02. Rule 26 disclosures due on or before 12:00 p.m., 7/22/02. (bwin) (Entered: 07/18/2002)	July 18, 2002	July 18, 2002
15	Advanced copy of Opinion of USCA re: [5 − 1] appeal by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld 7/12/02 (jcow) (Entered: 07/19/2002)	July 19, 2002	July 19, 2002
16	Respondents' Rule 26 Statement filed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, Commander W.R. Paulette (jcow) (Entered: 07/22/2002)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002
17	ORDER that the US Attorney either submit the disclosures required by Rule 26 or make a proper motion for relief by 7/24/02 at noon, entered and filed 7/22/02 ( signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar ) Copies Mailed: 7/22/02 [EOD Date: 7/23/02] (jcow) (Entered: 07/23/2002)	July 22, 2002	July 22, 2002
18	Response by Yaser Esam Hamdi to respondents' refusal to file Rule 26 disclosures filed [16 − 1] by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld (jcow) (Entered: 07/23/2002)	July 23, 2002	July 23, 2002
19	MOTION by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld to terminate appointment of counsel or in the alternative to require counsel to show cause why the financial eligibility requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3006A are met (jcow) (Entered: 07/23/2002)	July 23, 2002	July 23, 2002
20	MEMORANDUM in support of [19 − 1] motion to terminate appointment of counsel or in the alternative to require counsel to show cause why the financial eligibility requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3006A are met by Commander W.R. Paulette,	July 23, 2002	July 23, 2002
22	MOTION by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld for relief from this court's order dated July 18, 2002 requiring the government to file Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (jcow) (Entered: 07/24/2002)	July 24, 2002	July 24, 2002
23	MEMORANDUM in support of [22 − 1] motion by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld for relief from this court's order dated July 18, 2002 requiring the government to file Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, received (jcow) (Entered: 07/24/2002)	July 24, 2002	July 24, 2002
24	TRANSCRIPT of telephonic conference for date of 7/24/02 before U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar, Penny Wile, OCR (jcow) (Entered: 07/25/2002)	July 24, 2002	July 24, 2002
25	ANSWER to Complaint by Donald H. Rumsfeld, Commander W.R. Paulette (jcow) (Entered: 07/25/2002)	July 25, 2002	July 25, 2002
25	MOTION with Memorandum in Support by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld to Dismiss (jcow) (Entered: 07/25/2002)	July 25, 2002	July 25, 2002
26	MOTION by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld for Gregory George Garre to appear pro hac vice (jcow) (Entered: 07/25/2002)	July 25, 2002	July 25, 2002
27	RESPONSE by Yaser Esam Hamdi, Esam Fouad Hamdi to [22 − 1] motion for relief from this court's July 18, 2002 order by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld (jcow) (Entered: 07/26/2002)	July 26, 2002	July 26, 2002
28	REPLY by Donald H. Rumsfeld, Commander W.R. Paulette to response to [19 − 1] motion by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld (jcow) (Entered: 07/26/2002)	July 26, 2002	July 26, 2002
	So Ordered: granting [26 − 1] motion by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld for Gregory George Garre to appear pro hac vice, fee waiver granted, entered and filed 7/29/02 ( signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar ) Copies Mailed: 7/29/02 (jcow) (Entered: 07/29/2002)	July 29, 2002	July 29, 2002
29	RESPONSE by Yaser Esam Hamdi, Esam Fouad Hamdi to [25 − 1] motion to Dismiss by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld (jcow) (Entered: 07/30/2002)	July 30, 2002	July 30, 2002
30	ORDER setting a hearing to hear argument on materials submitted, set Hearing Deadline for 2:00 8/8/02 , further ordering the government to produce certain materials (see order for specifics) by noon on 8/6/02, entered and filed 7/31/02 ( signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar ) Copies Mailed: and faxed 7/31/02 [EOD Date: 7/31/02] (jcow) (Entered: 07/31/2002)	July 31, 2002	July 31, 2002
31	Notice of supplemental authority filed by petitioner Yaser Esam Hamdi, petitioner Esam Fouad Hamdi (jcow) (Entered: 08/01/2002)	Aug. 1, 2002	Aug. 1, 2002
32	MOTION by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld for relief from this court's production order of July 31, 2002 (jcow) (Entered: 08/06/2002)	Aug. 5, 2002	Aug. 5, 2002
33	MEMORANDUM in support of [32 − 1] motion for relief from this court's production order of July 31, 2002 by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald Rumsfeld, received (jcow) (Entered: 08/06/2002)	Aug. 5, 2002	Aug. 5, 2002
34	ORDER that the hearing scheduled for 8/8/02 at 2:00pm is cancelled and suspending all proceedings in this case until the Court of Appeals has acted on the motion of the petitioner for relief from the stay, entered and filed 8/7/02 ( signed by Judge Robert G. Doumar ) Copies Mailed: and faxed 8/7/02 [EOD Date: 8/7/02] (jcow) (Entered: 08/07/2002)	Aug. 7, 2002	Aug. 7, 2002
35	Copy of USCA Order Dissolving the stay in order that the district court may proceed in strict compliance with our July 12, 2002 decision which directed the court to consider the most cautious procedures first, conscious of the prospect that the least drastic procedures may promptly resolve Hamdi's case and make more intrusive measures unnecessary; in accordance with the principles set forth in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2002 WL 1483908 (4th Cir. July 12, 2002 the district court shall consider the sufficiency of the Mobbs declaration as an independent matter before proceeding further, entered at the direction of Chief Judge Wilkinson with the concurrence of Judge Wilkins and Judge Traxler (jcow) (Entered: 08/08/2002)	Aug. 8, 2002	Aug. 8, 2002
36	Opinion of USCA re: [5 − 1] appeal by Commander W.R. Paulette, Donald H. Rumsfeld 7/12/02 (jcow) (Entered: 08/09/2002)	Aug. 9, 2002	Aug. 9, 2002

Case: Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

2:02-cv-00439 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details