Rahman was tried in absentia under the Tunisian Patriot Act in 2003, convicted and sentenced to 20 years. He has severe health problems.

Rahman has presented evidence that he would face a serious threat of torture if rendered to a Tunisian prison. He cites to reports of international organizations that document torture of prisoners and police brutality in Tunisia. Rahman’s serious health problems, his Tunisian ex poste facto conviction in absentia, and his allegations of the indiscriminate use of torture in Tunisian prisons demonstrate the devastating and irreparable harm he is likely to face if transferred.

The Court noted it has the right to determine its own habeas jurisdiction. In deciding to grant the relief sought in the habeas filing seeking the injunction, Judge Kessler ruled:

In view of the grave harm Rahman has alleged he will face if transferred, it would be a profound miscarriage of justice if this Court denied the Motion based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in Boumediene and the Supreme Court later reversed or modified that decision. At that point, the damage would have been done.

....Finally, the Government suffers absolutely no harm from entry of the Preliminary Injunction, whereas the failure to grant Rahman the interim relief he seeks–-relief necessary to ensure his survival until the Supreme Court rules–-would be irremediable if Boumediene is reversed.

Great work by Rahman's defense lawyers, one of whom is Seton Hall Law Professor Mark Denbeaux.

Update: News coverage of the decision is now available here and here.