On January 24, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of President Trump and the U.S. government in Saifullah Abdullah Paracha v. Donald J. Trump, et al. On April 4, 2020, the Court made their decision available to the public. The petitioner, Mr. Paracha, was apprehended by the U.S. government in July of 2003 “on the belief that he had provided financial and other support to members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.” After being interrogated at Bagram Air Force Base, he was taken to Guantanamo Bay and has been held there since. The Court’s decision was in response to Mr. Paracha’s “petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the government’s legal authority to detain him”; he filed his original petition in November 2004 and then amended it in December 2004. The Court reviewed the evidence presented by both sides relating to the extent and type of support given by Mr. Paracha to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and concluded “by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Paracha provided a wide range of assistance to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.” Examples of assistance included “contribut[ing] to Al-Qaeda’s plan to place one of its agents . . . in the United States” and giving logistical assistance to KSM. The Court concluded that the support Mr. Paracha had given to the two organizations rose “to the level of ‘substantial support’ . . .  under the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force] and NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act],” justifying the U.S. Government’s detention of Mr. Paracha. In doing so, it referred back to the criminal material support statute referenced in Al-Hela v. Trump, as well as the need for a “‘functional rather than a formal approach’” that “‘focus[es] upon the actions of the individual in relation to the organization’” (cited from Al-Madhwani v. Obama). It also referenced the “expansive legal authority” given to the President “to detain individuals associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda,” as well as the low burden of proof required “to establish . . .  [the government’s] detention authority.”