Blog
PRIVILEGE OF HABEAS CORPUS EXTENDED TO GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES
Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd Discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Boumediene v. Bush, The Balance of Powers
In a sharply divided 5-4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court recently extended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to “detainees” held Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – commonly referred to as “Gitmo.” The decision marked the first time in the court’s history that it has ruled that non-citizens held in custody by the United States in a territory over which another country has de jure sovereignty enjoys the protection of the Constitution.
The far-reaching implications of this decision not only drew blistering criticism from the four dissenting justices – most notably Justice Antonin Scalia – but triggered a firestorm of debate among politicians and media pundits (many of whom now consider themselves an indispensable component of any social discussion) about its potential impact in the “war on terrorism.” Anticipating this sort of intense political and social reaction, the majority in two of its concluding paragraphs tried to allay these concerns by saying:
“Our opinion today does not undermine the Executive’s powers as Commander in Chief. On the contrary, the exercise of these powers is vindicated, not eroded, when confirmed by the Judicial Branch. Within the Constitution’s separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the executive to imprison a person. Some of these petitioners have been in custody six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention. Their access to the writ is a necessity to determine the lawfulness of their status, even if, in the end, they do not obtain the relief they seek.
“”Because our Nation’s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined. If, as some fear, terrorism continues to pose dangerous threats to us for years to come, the Court might not have this luxury. This result is not inevitable, however. The political branches, consistent with their independent obligations to interpret and uphold the Constitution, can engage in a genuine debate about how best to preserve constitutional values while protecting the Nation from terrorism.” See: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. _____ (2008), Slip Opinion Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196.
What placed the Supreme Court in the eye of the proverbial needle?
THE PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2001 Congress enacted a law entitled Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that gave the President the authority “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
AUMF gave the president sweeping powers to determine which, if any, nations, organizations, or person participated in any way in the 9/11 attacks and granted to him the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to make sure that terrorist attacks such as 9/11 did not occur again. President George W. Bush embraced this Congressional mandate. He utilized its authority to launch a military invasion of Afghanistan to eradicate al Qaeda training camps and remove the “Taliban” government from power.
This invasion resulted in the military and CIA capturing a number of foreign fighters suspected of being members or associates of al Qaeda. An immediate question presented itself: what would the United States do with these so-called “enemy combatants?” Some were transported to “secret” CIA prisons where they were subjected to torture and “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Others were transported to the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where they were housed, and subjected to torture, in hastily constructed detention facilities.
Cuba was a territory seized by America during the Spanish-American War (1898). In 1930 the United States and Cuba entered into a “lease” agreement whereby Cuba would retain “ultimate sovereignty” over the territory of Guantanamo Bay while the U.S. would have “complete jurisdiction and control” over the territory. The United States erected a naval base on the territory. The two countries on May 29, 1934 signed a treaty entitled Treaty Defining Relations with Cuba that says Cuba enjoys no “rights as a sovereign until the parties agree to modification of the 1903 Lease Agreement or the United States abandons the base.” See: Boumediene, Slip Opinion at 23.
Guantanamo Bay, therefore, is not formally a part of the United States. It is a territory located outside the United States. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court had never ruled that non-citizens held in the custody of the United States in a territory over which another country had de jure sovereignty enjoyed constitutional protections, the U.S. military reasonably assumed that it had the authority under the direction of the President to detain “enemy combatants” indefinitely in its facilities at Guantanamo Bay without providing them with any constitutional rights.
Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan the U.S. Supreme Court gave tacit approval to this military assumption by saying that enemy combatants who fought against the United States in Afghanistan could be detained “for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured” and that this principle “is so fundamental and accepted [as] an incident to war as to be an exercise of the ‘necessary and appropriate force’ Congress has authorized the President to use.” See: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2002).
The Defense Department sought to legitimize its indefinite detention of captured foreign fighters and suspected terrorist detainees by establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to officially determine whether those fighters could be designated as “enemy combatants” under departmental definitions. Attorneys for some of the inmates designated as “enemy combatants” filed writs of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging those CSRT determinations. The district court dismissed the writs for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo Bay is outside the sovereign territory of the United States. The case worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2004, the court appeared to back away from Hamdi by extending statutory habeas corpus jurisdiction to Guantanamo Bay detainees. See: Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004).
In the wake of the Rasul decision, the “enemy combatant” cases were consolidated and allotted to two separate federal district court judges in Washington. In one proceeding U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon granted a government motion to dismiss saying the enemy combatants had “no rights” that could be litigated through habeas corpus; and in the other proceeding U.S. District Court Judge Joyce Hens Green reached an opposite conclusion, finding that the combatants enjoyed rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment that could be litigated through habeas corpus. See: Khalid v. Bush, 355 F.Supp. 311, 314 (D.C. 2005); In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F.Supp. 443, 464 (D.C. 2005).
While these two cases were on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) which set forth very strict procedures for reviewing the status determinations made by the CSRTs. The DTA also amended the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to provide “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider … an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanmo Bay, Cuba.”
The Supreme Court responded that same year say saying this amendment to § 2241 did not apply to cases pending before the court when DTA was enacted. See: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 576-77 (2005).
Determined to force a showdown with the Supreme Court, Congress responded to Hamdan by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). Article 7 of the MCA effectively stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus challenges not only by those foreign fighters already determined to be “enemy combatants” but by those awaiting such determinations. Subsection 2 of article 7 also stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear any other legal challenges, no matter how styled, challenging any conditions of their detention.
In the meantime, the D.C. Court of Appeals consolidated all the “enemy combatant” cases, and citing § 7 of the MCA, concluded last year that the MCA stripped all federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus applications filed by designated enemy combatants. See: Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (CADC 2007). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the habeas issue without further debate.
THE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE
The Government of the United States forcefully argued that non-citizens designated as enemy combatants and detained in a territory outside the country have no constitutional rights, including the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus guaranteed by the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Boumediene, Slip Opinion, at 8. Central to this argument was the government’s firm stance that the common-law writ of habeas corpus as it was devised in England extended only to those territories over which the Crown had sovereignty. Attorneys for Boumediene countered by saying that the writ followed the Crown’s officers to any territory. The Supreme Court observed:
“ … Diligent search by all parties reveals no certain conclusions. In none of these cases cited do we find that a common-law court would or would not have granted or refused to hear for lack of jurisdiction, a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a prisoner deemed an enemy combatant, under a standard like the one the Department of Defense has used in these cases, and when held in a territory, like Guantanamo, over which the Government has total military and civil control.” Id., Slip Opinion, at 16.
The issue of sovereignty proved thorny for the court. Its prior cases did not provide the court with a clear road map showing one way or the other on the issue of whether habeas corpus is available to an enemy combatant detained in a territory outside the country. The government argued that since there was no case showing the writ had been extended to anyone outside a country’s sovereignty, the privilege of the writ, therefore, should not be extended in those cases. The petitioners in Boumediene, however, argued that since there was no case showing a court had refused to exercise jurisdiction in such a case, it implied that the court could extend jurisdiction in such cases. Id., Slip Opinion, at 22.
While the Supreme Court conceded there had been little need “to explore the outer boundaries of the Constitution’s geographic reach,” the court found some constitutional direction in the fact that the Constitution applied to new territories acquired or seized by the United States, saying this undermined “the Government’s argument that, at least as applied to noncitizens, the Constitution necessarily stops where de jure sovereignty ends.” Id., Slip Opinion at 25.
The court found additional constitutional guidance from a series of cases at the turn of the 20th century in which the court grappled with the Constitution’s “geographic scope.” These cases came under judicial scrutiny after the United States acquired the non-contiguous territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines – all of which were ceded to the U.S. by Spain after the Spanish-American War. Congress had decided to “discontinue” its practice of routinely extending “constitutional rights” to territories by statute. Id., Slip Onion, at 26. This led to a series of decisions known as the “Insular Cases” which addressed whether the Constitution, by its own force, applied to a territory that is not a state. The Insular Cases are as follows:
- DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. l (1901)
- Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901)
- Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901)
- Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
- Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903)
- Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1945)
The Supreme Court held that “the Constitution has independent force in these territories, a force not contingent upon acts of legislative grace. Yet it took note of the difficulties inherent in that position.” Id., Slip Opinion, at 27. For example, the former Spanish colonies functioned under a “civil-law system” that had no experience with Anglo-American legal traditions, such as grand and petit juries. Id. Applying American constitutional principles of law would have required a complete overhaul of the legal system in the Philippines. The Court, therefore, was reluctant to “risk the uncertainty and instability” that would have ensued had such an overhaul taken place, particularly since the United States planned to grant the islands its independence.
These “practical considerations” led to what the Court called “the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined for statehood, but only in part in unincorporated Territories.” Id., Slip Opinion, 27-28. See also: Dorr v. United States, supra, 143 [“Until Congress shall see fit to incorporate territory ceded by treaty into the United States … the territory is to be governed under the power existing in Congress to make laws for such territories and subject to such constitutional restrictions upon the powers of that body as are applicable to the situation”].
Fifty years later the Insular Cases influenced significantly the Supreme Court decision in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). This case found that the spouses of American servicemen, who lived on American military bases in England and Japan, were entitled to a trial by jury under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The spouses had been charged with crimes committed in those counties and tried before military courts in accordance with executive agreements between all three countries. The fact that the spouses were “American citizens was a key factor in the case and was central to the plurality’s conclusion that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments apply to American civilians tried outside the United States.” See: Boumediene, supra, Slip Opinion at 29-30.
But “practical considerations” related to the place of confinement and trial of these American civilians splintered the plurality and the concurring justices in the Reid decision. While some of the justices in Reid found it was practical to grant American civilians a right to a jury trial, a judicial breach erupted when other justices pointed to the court’s previous decision in In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891). In that case the court held that under certain circumstances American civilians were not entitled to be indicted and tried by a jury while abroad. Ross – a British subject – was a sailor on an American merchant vessel in Japanese waters who was tried by an American consular for the murder of a fellow crewman. Id., 140 U.S. at 459, 479. The court concluded that Ross, whose citizenship did not play a role in the decision, had received all the rights of a similarly situated American citizen and, in effect, a trial by jury would have been impractical given the circumstances of the case. Id., at 479.
The concurring Justices in Reid interpreted Ross to mean that under certain circumstances, involving “practical considerations,” the jury provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not apply to Americans being tried by Americans abroad. The Reid plurality, however, “doubted that Ross was rightly decided, precisely because it believed the opinion was insufficiently protective of the rights of American citizens.” Boumediene, supra, Slip Opinion at 31.
“Practical considerations,” as much as the core issue of sovereignty, would influence yet another Supreme Court decision concerning constitutional rights being extended abroad. See: Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950). In that case the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether enemy aliens detained at the Landsberg Prison in Germany and convicted of war crimes were entitled to habeas corpus jurisdiction. The court balanced the costs and difficulties associated with the military having to produce the prisoners at a habeas corpus proceeding against the constitutional necessities of such a proceeding before deciding to deny the enemy aliens access to the writ. The court noted that “at no relevant time were [these prisoners] within any territory over which the United States is sovereign and [that] the scenes of their offense, their capture, their trial and their punishment were all beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.” Id., 339 U.S. at 778. See also: Boumediene, supra, Slip Opinion at 32.
The Government in Boumediene tried to convince the court that the Eisentrager court had adopted a “formalistic, sovereignty-based test” for determining the reach of habeas corpus and that the court should confine its analysis solely to the issue of sovereignty. The Boumediene court rebuffed the Government’s narrow interpretation of Eisentrager for three reasons:
The court rejected the Government’s premise that the Eisentrager language referencing the prisoners’ status and U.S. sovereignty was the “only authoritative language” in the decision and that the rest of the decision’s language was purely dicta. The court pointed out that “practical considerations” (costs, time, and difficulties) also played an integral role in the Eisentrager conclusion not to extend the reach of habeas corpus.
“ … because the United States lacked both de jure sovereignty and plenary control over Landsberg Prison … it is far from clear that the Eisentrager Court used the term sovereignty only in the narrow technical sense and not to connote the degree of control the military asserted over the facility. The Justices who decided Eisentrager would have understood sovereignty as a multifaceted concept…Yet the Court mentioned the concept of territorial sovereignty only twice in its opinion. That the Court devoted a significant portion of [its] discussion of practical barriers to the running of the writ suggests that the Court was not concerned exclusively with the formal legal status of Landsberg Prison but also with the objective degree of control the United States asserted over it…”
The court said that accepting the Government’s reading of Eisentrager as correct, “the opinion would have marked not only a change in, but a complete repudiation of, the Insular Cases (and later Reid’s) functional approach to questions of extraterritoriality. We cannot accept the Government’s view. Nothing in Eisentrager says that de jure sovereignty is or has ever been the only relevant consideration in determining the geographic reach of the Constitution or of habeas corpus. Were that the case, there would be considerable tension between Eisentrager, on the one hand, and the Insular Cases and Reid on the other.”
Boumediene, supra, Slip Opinion at 33-34.
The Supreme Court also observed that the Government’s “formal sovereignty-based test” argument also raised “troubling separation-of-powers” concerns. The court noted that the United State has maintained absolute, unfettered control of Guantanamo Bay for more than 100 years but without any claim of sovereignty. The Government disingenuously argued that because the United States had relinquished all claims of sovereignty, the constitution does not apply to non-citizens detained there. The Supreme Court said “the necessary implications of [this] argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the same time entering into a lease that grants total control over the territory back to the United States, it would be possible for the political branches to govern without legal constraint.” Id., at 35.
The Supreme Court was not about to allow such a raw usurpation of power, not even under the political guise of a “war on terror.” The high court drew the sharp line in the constitutional sand: “The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not ‘absolute and unlimited’ but are subject ‘to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.’ … Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on and off at will is quite another. The former position reflects this Court’s recognition that certain matters requiring political judgments are best left to the political branches. The latter would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this Court, say ‘what the law is.’” Id., at 35-36.
THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE
Article I, § 9, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution provides: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This constitutional provision has become known in legal parlance as the “Suspension Clause.” The Supreme Court in Eisentrager outlined a fact-specific framework for determining the constitutional reach of this Clause. Beyond the “practical considerations” discussed above, the Eisentrager court found the following factors relevant in its decision not to extend the reach of the clause to the Landsberg prison inmates:
- The inmates were enemy aliens
- The inmates had never been or resided in United States
- The inmates were captured outside the U.S. territory and held in military custody as prisoners of war
- The inmates were tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States
- The inmates were convicted for offenses of war committed outside the United States
- The inmates were at all times imprisoned outside the United States
- Id., 339 U.S. at 777.
The Boumediene court found that based on these Eisentrager factors and the court’s prior “extraterritoriality opinions” (e.g., Insular Cases and Reid), it found three factors central to its conclusion that the Suspension Clause reached the “enemy combatants” detained at Guantanamo Bay:
The citizenship of the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made;
The nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took place; and
The practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ.
Boumediene, supra, Slip Opinion at 36-37.
Factor One: The court contrasted the “enemy aliens” in Landsberg Prison with the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay. The Landsberg inmates did not contest their status as “enemy aliens” while the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have vigorously contested their status as “enemy combatants.”
With respect to the “adequacy of the process” by which those “enemy” determinations were made, the court concluded that the “CSRT hearings are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Although the detainee is assigned a ‘Personal Representative’ to assist him during CSRT proceedings, the Secretary of Navy’s memorandum makes clear that person is not the detainee’s lawyer or even his ‘advocate.’ The Government’s evidence is accorded a presumption of validity. The detainee is allowed to present ‘reasonably available’ evidence … but his ability to rebut the Government’s evidence against him is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage. And although the detainee can seek review of his status determination in the Court of Appeals, that review process cannot cure all defects in the earlier proceedings.” Id., at 37-78 [internal citations omitted].
In effect, the CSRT proceedings are a due process sham. They exist only as a futile attempt to satisfy international human rights criticism. Guilt is pre-determined in the investigation/interrogation process where torture, more often than not, elicited the incriminating evidence of guilt. The CSRT proceedings simply provide an official forum in which to make the guilt determination official.
Factor Two: The court found that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are “similarly situated” to the Landsberg inmates in that “the sites of their apprehension and detention are technically outside the sovereign territory of the United States.” Id. While this fact weighed against finding that the Guantanamo Bay detainees enjoyed protections under the Suspension Clause, the court decided there are significant differences between Guantanamo Bay in 2008 and the Landsberg prison in 1950. Id. The United States did not have complete control over Landsberg. It shared jurisdiction and control of the prison with other Allied Forces, making it answerable to its allies for activities occurring in the prison, and the U.S. planned to return control of the prison to Germany as soon as practical. Id., at 39.
Guantanamo Bay, on the other hand, effectively belongs to the United States. There are no immediate plans to return the territory to Cuba. As the court observed: “In every practical sense Guantanamo is not abroad; it is within the constant jurisdiction of the United States.” Id.
Factor Three: The Boumediene court quickly pointed out, as the Eisentrager court had in 1950, that there “are costs to holding the Suspension Clause applicable in a case of military detention abroad.” Id. Not only do habeas proceedings entail an expenditure of funds but they divert military personnel from perhaps more pressing duties. While these realities had to be considered, the court concluded they were not dispositive.
“Compliance with any judicial process requires some incremental expenditure of resources,” the court said. “Yet civilian courts and the Armed Forces have functioned along side each other at various points in our history. The Government presents no credible arguments that the military mission at Guantanamo would be compromised if habeas corpus courts had jurisdictions to hear detainees’ claims. And in light of the plenary control the United States asserts over the vase, none are apparent to use.” Id., at 39-40 [internal citation omitted].
CONCLUSION
The Government in Boumediene failed to present any “practical” reasons why the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be denied access to habeas corpus. The Government made broad assertions about “security concerns” and “dangers” associated with the war on terror. But it was a pie in the sky argument – all crust and no filling. While the threats of terrorism are real, the ones presented by the Government did not justify a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The Boumediene court frankly discussed the “threat” issue:
“The real risks, the real threats of terrorist attacks are constant and not likely to soon abate. The ways to disrupt our life and laws are so many and unforeseen that the Court should not attempt even some general catalogue of crises that might occur. Certain principles are apparent, however. Practical considerations and exigent circumstances inform the definition and reach of the law’s writs, including habeas corpus. The cases and our tradition reflect this precept.
“In cases involving foreign citizens detained abroad by the Executive, it likely would be both an impractical and unprecedented extension of judicial power to assume that habeas corpus would be available at the moment the prisoner is taken into custody. If and when habeas corpus jurisdiction applies, as it does in these cases, then proper deference can be accorded to reasonable procedures for screening and initial detention under lawful and proper conditions of confinement and treatment for a reasonable period of time…” Id., at 65.
The court, however, observed that the Boumediene detainees had been held for as long as six years awaiting CSRT determinations without any judicial remedy available to them. Forcing these detainees to go through the review proceedings set forth under the DTA would “require additional months, if not years, of delay,” the court said. Id., at 66.
But it must be emphasized here that that light at the end of the tunnel may indeed be just another train. The Boumediene decision does not offer a broad license to assume habeas corpus will be beneficial remedy for the Guantanamo detainees, particularly with respect to the abuses they have been subjected to. As the court itself cautioned:
“Our decision today holds only that the petitioners before us are entitled to seek the writ; that the DTA review procedures are an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus; and that the petitioners in these cases need not exhaust the review procedures in the Court of Appeals before proceeding with their habeas actions to the District Court … Our holding with regard to exhaustion should not be read to imply that a habeas court should intervene the moment the enemy combatant steps foot in a territory where the writ runs. The Executive is entitled to a reasonable period of time to determine a detainee’s status before a court entertains that detainee’s habeas corpus petition. The CSRT process is the mechanism Congress and the President set up to deal with those issues. Except in cases of undue delay, federal courts should refrain from entertaining an enemy combatant’s habeas corpus petition at least until after the Department, acting via the CSRT, has had a chance to review his status.” Id., at 66-67.
But at least the judicial branch exercised its balancing power to check the constitutional abuses of the Executive and Legislative branches by lifting the restrictions they had imposed on habeas corpus. That is cause for constitutional celebration.
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now
Testimonials
John T. Floyd Law Firm
3730 Kirby Drive # 750, Houston
-
If you have hired attorneys that meet the Webster dictionary definition, ie: "Attorney " is a person that has a law degree, will not be totally honest, can take your money … More and not earn it, will put you off until he is ready to talk to you, and/or never study your case to be able to defend you. Mr. Floyd is the only attorney that doesn't fit that definition!! You will be delighted to have Mr. John Floyd in your corner! Not one attorney that I have ever met that would ever return a check that I sent to him, because he said I paid him too much! Wow! That right there should tell you something about his integrity!!!!! He has a very calm demeanor and doesn't stretch the truth even if you don't want to hear it, he will tell you the truth. Call and set up an appointment with him and judge for yourself. You are wasting time and money on any other attorney, just hire the best, Mr. Floyd.
-
John T. Floyd and his team are some of the best people! I was able to get a second opinion from them on legal advice. His team has been honest, kind, and very informative which has … More been a huge blesssing.
-
I highly recommend John T. Floyd Lawfirm. They are truly knowledgeable and willing to go the extra mile to defend your innocence. Psalms 35
-
Outstanding!Professional knowledge. Rich experiences. Good outcome.
-
-
The best lawyer I ever encounter with a very good personality. He’s very professional and he will go far and beyond for his clients best interest. He’s definitely a 5 star attorney … More when it comes to delivering. I couldn’t be more happier that I hired him !! 👏👏👏👏
-
-
I can honestly say from what I have seen so far, Floyd is a compassionate soul who cares for his client's. Floyd is by far very knowledgeable in this area. He's currently … More assisting my [Father] on a sex assault. We are all suffering so much as my father is an elder man, but we have faith in God, and Mr. Floyd he can dismissed this outrageous allegation soon. Thank you, yoli
-
I had wonderful experience with this law firm. They were so helpful and knowledgeable of the process.my case was dismissed because of Mr John T Floyd,thank you for everything .
-
I am very happy today my case dismissed God bless Mr John T Floyd very good lawyer thanks you so mush sir
-
I had a great experience with this Law Firm, the kind staff helped me locate a Lawyer even though they were unable to take my case.
They were very helpful, kind and returned my call … More in a timely manner. I would definitely recommend them and use them in the future. -
I can tell that Jone is an excellent attorney in Houston. Personally, he is a great man. In addition to great service and amazing results. Recommended
-
Mr. Floyd is an incredible attorney and human being. He cares about your case, the facts, the law, and your life! I am sorry for whatever situation you are going through, but choosing … More Mr. Floyd, his firm, and their professional experience to help you, will be the best decision you ever make!
-
John T Floyd is a straight shooter! He was very direct and responsive to my phone calls and questions. I was in awe of his knowledge, and professional decorum! The best decision that … More you could make is to schedule a consultation with him before considering anyone else!
-
I asked the Law Office of John T. Floyd a very important question regarding the legal aspects of purchasing a firearm with a deferred adjudication charge. They answered the question … More very professionally and accurately and I was quite pleased with the information that was shared. I recommend this law firm because they are very honest and will work for you and with you.
-
I’ve never been one to write reviews but this time I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to say something. I had some serious legal questions I needed answers to concerning Texas laws. … More Being I’m from another state, I found and reached out to Attorney John Floyd for the answers. Mr Floyd listened to to my requests and told me what he need from me and went out of his way to get me the answers. Very polite, straightforward and professional, I can’t thank him enough for all he’s done. Whatever your legal case may be, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr Floyd.
-
John & Chris helped my family member get a reduced charge and acceptable plea agreement in place. Their compassion, attention to every detail was what helped carry the day.Truly … More the best of the best.P
-
Mr. Floyd is both ethical and loyal to his clients; two qualities that are hard to find specially in lawyers. I'd definitely recommend him to anyone.Positive
Professionalism …More … More -
Mr. John was very helpful and truly was the reason why my case was dismissed. Thank you so much Mr. John I truly recommend everyone in need to work with him.
-
His service to the community and diligence to helping his clients speaks for its self! Not to mention the many articles, papers and TV appearances that speak to his intellect
-
John has given Excellent service and have been very friendly and extremely helpful to us. I highly recommend this law firm
-
This law firm is diligent, responsive and succeeded in getting my case dismissed. 10/10 would recommend.
-
super knowledgeable, good attitude, would definitely recommend him
-
Very helpful, knowledgeable and honest.
-
John is an amazing person and lawyer who is actually very understanding of how anxious I got and although it was hard to reach him sometimes because of his schedule, but never worry … More he is on top of things. He is very organized, very smart. I had the experience to go through a trial with him, and he always plans ahead well and is actually open and receptive to any ideas and comments I had and he was quick to decide which is right to use at the moment. I really appreciated working with him and Chris. Great lawyers and great people. As I was reminded by John, I am adding that the Jury reached a not guilty decision on the original charge and on a lesser charge in just 25 minutes. It took more time to write the charge and instructions for the jury than it took them to reach a decision.
-
Highly recommend John T Floyd law firm, great response time and demeanor.I was researching an on-going criminal case, when I found an informative article written by John Floyd (about … More the perils of expert testimony). I called his office, and was very pleased to receive a timely call back. Not only was Mr. Floyd candid and helpful, but he had the kindest demeanor of any attorney that I've dealt with. I am so glad to have found this firm.
-
Although I am not a client, John Floyd contacted me the same day I sent an email requesting advice, answered my questions and even when further to assist with my issue and communicated … More with me the next day. A true credit to his profession and I can only imagine how well he provides services to his actual clients!
-
I give Mr. Floyd 10 Stars if they were available so I'm giving him five that's all that's available. The first time I left a message for him it was on a Friday after … More 5 p.m. and within 15 minutes he called me back I told him I needed to buy a lotto ticket because that has never happened. I knew from our chat and him calling me back that he was different from any attorney I've tried to talk to left messages never got called back they didn't even know what I needed and neither did Mr. Floyd but he did call me back. I was very interested in meeting with mr. Floyd about my case because I felt he was very transparent honest and genuine. If you've ever dealt with attorneys they don't have those traits but Mr. Floyd does. He was very honest with me told me what I could and could not do with my case. He is not egotistical he's very compassionate and he actually reads the documents you sent him unbelievable that's never happened. He will be the only lawyer I refer to anyone that needs his expertise. If you're in need of a criminal defense attorney please give John T Floyd a call you will not be disappointed.
-
Mr John is a great human being and a very knowledgeable attorney. He has always called me back promptly,advised me very clearly and never rushed our conversation. i was wrongfully accused … More and Mr John had my case DISMISSED!! on the day of trial after fighting for me for two years. I am very thankful to the John T. Floyd Law Firm. You will not go wrong with John. Mr John you deserve way more then 5 stars.Thank youShaikh.
-
John Floyd Law Firm is highly recommended for your legal needs. He and his staff are highly professional in every aspect. Easy and comfortable feeling talking with him, and he understands … More your needs and explains your legal advice in a way you can understand. Enough just cant be said. Thank You Sir.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John was kind enough to assist me with legal advise on my firearm gun rights restoration. I highly recommend him and his firm. Very professional and knowledgeable. If I need assistance … More in the future I will definitely go back to him.
-
What I liked the most was that he actually returned my phone after leaving a message unlike pretty much everyone else I called prior. He listened and answered my question with the best … More advice that would benefit me the most. I was actually lost from moving to Texas from a different state we’re laws vary and he pointed me toward the right direction to get a understanding of if I need to do business with him now or after I contact a lawyer in my home state.
-
John T Floyd handled my sons case & got a dismissal for us! He is great to work with, gets back to you promptly & knows what he’s doing. Definitely one of the best we have had … More to deal with!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
John is honestly the best! The whole team is. He answered me in a timely manner and helped me when my friend was going through a situation in Houston, Texas as an inmate. He was so … More thorough, honest, and without charging me sent me so much information because I was out of the loop. He never once tried to take you for your money, he did all that he could to. help me and I can't thank him enough.
-
I have used John on two occasions and found him to have full knowledge of Texas law, diligent, creative in plan, and aggressive in defense. He is the best criminal defense attorney … More in the State of Texas. No reason to look elsewhere.
-
I have been calling to get some legal advice pertaining to gun rights. A few legal offices would not even take my call because quote " your not a client and Im losing money. … More I I called John T. Floyd Law Firm and they were not only able to answer my question, but gave great detail information, and further elaborated on their answer. I hope I do not have to use them in the future, but if I do need to, they will be my first call.
-
Great lawyer! Needed some advice and gave me a Consultation, and advice for steps to take, without any hassle l, Was a honest guy and actually wanted to help me and not just take my … More money! Highly recommend!!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Attorney Floyd replied very timely to my inquiry and he provided practical advice. I will not hesitate to contact him in the future if I need additional legal counsel.
-
Highly recommend, down to earth lawyer. Talked to me about my legal issues without being super money hungry and genuinely wanted to help me with my legal problems. 5 stars ⭐️.
-
Very knowledgeable and professional. I called and left a message Friday morning and before end of business that day I received a call back.Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism … More …More -
Very helpful highly recommended for any Question / case will definitely keep he's name and number for any other legal advice
-
Excellent service and a lawyer that doesn't lie. He does what he says. JW recommends him.
-
One of the best services Ive used in awhile. Thank you for all the help and answers. You got my life back. Thank youPositive
Quality …More -
Im impressed. This guy was polite and professional and most important...he listened.
-
Good experience and very good lawyer
-
-
-
Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, ValueMore -
It was a pleasure speaking with John. He is knowledgeable and has a true desire to help the people of society. I turned to him for some guidance of a long-standing issue. He never … More rushed our conversation and went out of his way to look into the details to provide the right answer as well as assist me anyway he could. Thank you for our conversations and I wish your and your firm the best. If you need a lawyer, John Floyd is your guy!
-
John represented me in court for roughly 2 years. I won't (and shouldn't) get into any serious details, but let me tell you that I couldn't have chosen anyone better. … More Seriously.Every appearance in court I felt very comfortable. The judge and DA's had a high regard for his reputation. There is a time I recall where simply his presence greatly impacted the court's interpretation of my case and persons. We were in front of the stand and the judge could not stop talking about John's prestige and past accomplishments and how that took in relation to my case. I kept silent in front of the judge, but I observed then that John's popularity and reputation within the court had already given me a better looking rapport with the judge. Let me tell you, I never had more confidence then, knowing that the judge held him in such high regard.This is not to mention how personable John is. I'll be honest that during the stress of court, sharing a laugh with your lawyer helps a lot. This may sound a lot, but I really appreciated the relationship we had then. This is also not to mention that he was able to deal very well with any DA that rotated over the years. Seriously, John was great, prompt with information and very hands on with my case. I had great peace those 2 years until everything wrapped up.If you're looking for a lawyer, I highly, HIGHLY recommend the John T. Floyd Law Firm. He IS nationally renowned, you know. He'll get the job done to the utmost confidence. He's very experienced and has a great record to boot. I am glad to have had him represent me in court and trust me that I never thought I'd ever say that (and whoever does?). We explored every avenue of victory together and I personally enjoyed the experience, despite the seriousness of the accusation.If you have a case that needs to be represented at the highest levels, choose John T. Floyd. He's a good man and very good at what he does. Him and his team has the experience you need to make the best decisions and options to get the best outcome for your case. We got the best result I could possibly ask for, thank God.Seriously. Hire John. He knows what he's doing.Seriously.
-
One of the few honest lawyers I have ever talked to. His complimentary consultation was knowledgeable and thorough. He knew exactly what the issue was and how to handle it. His candid … More appraisal of the situation and how to proceed saved me thousands of dollars in legal fees. If you have a case requiring expertise in John's area of practice, look no further. Hire this man!
-
I had the opportunity to read an article that Mr. Floyd wrote and it was very interesting. I called him about the article and advice concerning a similar situation. He not only gave … More me excellent advice, he pointed out not just what I wanted to hear but what I needed to hear concerning my situation. The Good, The Bad and The ugly in a manner or speaking. He spoke with an open and honest heart with information to help me and not just to get a client.
-
If you are in trouble and need a lawyer, contact the John T. Floyd law firm. Some of the best lawyers in Texas work there! Understanding and helpful lawyers and staff that will do all … More they can to help you 😊
-
He gave me one of the most honest answers I have received in a very long time about any issue I was having with anything. Legal or not legal. I highly recommend giving him a call and … More will be referring him to friends and family if they have any issues in the future.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He took time out of his day to answer my legal questions and didn’t even charge me. I would definitely recommend him to you.
-
Gave free consultation on getting gun rights back. He truly cares about gun rights and getting you the help you deserve. 100% worth a callPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, … More Value …More -
Very professional, great quality work, and very friendly and helpful. Overall, their service is phenomenal. I recommend Mr. Floyd to anyone.
-
Mr. Floyd took the time to explain his experience with the law to me in layman's terms. Definitely give him a call.Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
He was honest , knowledgeable , and professional about what we talked about. Most lawyers are just about the money , but not john.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He was very truthful and honest with us very great man I would recommend him and we would use him again
-
Very professional honest and works hard currently working my husband’s appeal I pray he does his best workPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I contacted John T. Floyd Law firm and I was very satisfied with service extremely helpful and friendly thank you Mr. FloydPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More … More -
This law frim was informative,great response time ,and the attorney called back not some secretary or legal assistant thank u guys for all your help wish it was more like youPositive … More
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I would highly recommend Mr Floyd. He was very helpful and knowledge with a legal question I had.Positive
Professionalism …More -
He explained my case better then any other lawyerPositive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
Very informative
-
-
-
-
Had the pleasure speaking with John Floyd on a personal matter, he was very responsive, nothing but exceptional, and he really cares about you with sincerity and most importantly knows … More what is he talking about! No games or bs, his approach to my situation even though I knew it was probably way smaller then what he normally takes on, he was extremely helpful and didn't care about the size of the matter like other attorneys do. He really looked out for my best interests. You can tell he has decades of experience doing what he does just by chatting with him. I would highly recommend him.
-
Words can’t describe how grateful I am for working with John, he went above and beyond my expectation. I was wrongly accused and hired many lawyers before hiring John Floyd but they … More all disappointed me, I had lost hope until a friend of mine referred me to John. From the start he had my best interest in mind and gave helpful advice, he explained the process and guided me. He put more work and time than all my previous lawyers that cost me thousands of dollars. He was constantly communicating with court and defended me more than all lawyer i had hired before him. Don’t waste your time and money like I did, believe me when I say I hired countless lawyers before him and no one came close to John. I’m forever thankful for him for fighting for my innocence and getting my case dismissed. Thank you so much🙏🏼🙏🏼
-
I called Mr Floyd and left a message, with in the hour I received a call back with much more information then I could have ever expected. Mr Floyd was very informative on every question … More I had for him. He seemed like he cared, instead of like most attorneys that you talk to that are just out for a quick buck. If you want someone that is going to shoot strait with you, and has your best interest in hand, this is you guy. This was the best experience that I have ever had with an lawyer.
-
I can state with confidence that Mr. Floyd and his team are the most competent and professional lawyers one can hope for. My case was quite complex and I admit that as a law student … More I was not the most patient client. Mr. Floyd did a phenomenal job of managing the bench, prosecution and myself! The result was above expectation, and I will never hesitate to recommend this firm regardless of the caliber of the case at issue.
-
It was a pleasure working with Mr. Floyd. I contacted him regarding a legal matter and he was extremely knowledgeable about the law, and responded in a timely manner. I appreciated … More the fact I did not feel rushed, and he made sure he thoroughly answered all questions I had. I would highly recommend him!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism …More -
Spoke with John Floyd about a 45 year old criminal case I was involved in. I had very little information about the case and John helped me search what records were available and gave … More me guidance to find more information. He was very professional and took his time helping me. I may need to hire a lawyer on this case and Mr. Floyd will be the man.Thanks John.
-
Very professional and straight forward. He's not going to waste your time or money. Very knowledgeable in a large range of possible matters one could face living in these days … More and times. If ever you need legal assistance, this is who I would suggest. Awesome!Positive
Responsiveness, Quality, Professionalism, Value …More -
I called about some legal questions I needed to get clarified and John was able to give me clarification and sound advice. I will definitely contact John for all future legal questions … More and issues.Thank you John!Positive
Responsiveness, Professionalism, Value …More -
Knows his stuff and well respected with DA and judges. I have referred him a couple times and every client has been satisfied
-
John is beyond knowledgeable! If I decide to pursue my case any further I would only have him represent me.
-
What a great attorney, this guy really took time out of his day to answer my questions and explain my case to me. Very grateful, thank you so muchPositive
Professionalism …More -
Absolutely a very professional lawyer. Very well read in the current law and more than willing to help if needed.
-
Mr. John he’s a professional he knows what he’s doing and he’s patient they recommend Him stronglyPositive
Professionalism …More -
Great service, very knowledgable and happy to help with any questions I had
-
Quick to action and helpful and knowledgeable with entertainment industry based issues!
-
Responded on a holiday week. Very knowledgeable and reassuring.
-
Very professional
-
-
-
-
I want to thank John T. Floyd and all of his team. He is the best lawyer who cares aboutHis clients and fights really hard to get the best outcome. He is a fighter and he is awesome!!!I … More recommend if any one needs criminal defense , he is the BEST. We had a really serious caseAnd we are very thankful for the outcome. Thank you John!!!!! God bless you!!!!!!
-
The attorneys at John T. Floyd Law Firm work diligently to achieve the best possible results for their clients. They are caring and knowledgeable professionals. Their expertise in the … More law and their experience as trial attorneys makes them the right choice as a defense attorney. I recommend this law firm highly.
-
From beginning to end this firm handled my case like the top tier professionals they are. I would not trust ANYONE else with my legal needs after having less than stellar experiences … More with other teams. Thank you Floyd!!!
-
I really felt like the team cared about my case and am super satisfied with the outcome. Would not recommend anyone else!
-
These guys do amazing work and have phenomenal service! Hands down best in the Houston area!!
-
John and Chris are true professionals! Love those guys like family!
-
Mr. Floyd and his team are very knowledgeable, informative, and helpful.
-
A team you can depend on to stand up and fight for you to prove the truth the whole truth!
-
-
Mr. John T. Floyd represented me.I couldn't be happier with the outcome he managed to achieve on an VERY Important case that was dismissed the day of Trial. He is patient & … More very knowledgeable of the legal system. I HIGHLY recommend him to anyone in need of a lawyer!John, I am forever grateful & satisfied with the effort you put forth & all you did for me. Thank you isn't enough!God bless you & your family!
-
The John T. Floyd Law Firm assisted me, and I can tell you that the attorney took the time to answer my questions, and I didn't feel rushed or dismissed as I have experienced in … More the past with attorneys. The attorney was very nice and extremely knowledgeable. Initial impressions and continued excellent customer service are big factors for me and as such I would highly recommend this firm.
-
I thank you for your efforts to help Felons regain their Civil rights, and for the information on possession , I am A convicted Felon, no violent history. I am an expert shot, I am … More 76 yoa, and very concerned about the present lake of Security in our State and Country. God Bless and Prosper you in your efforts, Your friend, Sonny Bivens
-
I really appreciated both Chris and John helping with my legal questions and concerns. Both are good guys and I would not hesitate to recommend them.
-
Extremely helpful!!! Helping me understand the law.
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Request A Confidential Consultation
Fields marked with an * are required
"*" indicates required fields
Copyright © 2024 John T. Floyd Law Firm • All rights reserved.
Designed & Developed by
