In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 , 797 (2008), a case involving a habeas challenge by prisoners held as enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the Supreme Court explained that where a person is detained by executive order, rather than say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. 553 U.S. at 783. The Court explained that while habeas proceedings challenging detention by executive order do not need to contain the same procedures as a criminal trial, the writ must nevertheless be effective. Id. The Court explicitly noted that it is uncontroversial . . . that the habeas privilege entitles the prisoner to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that he is being held pursuant to the erroneous application or interpretation of relevant law. Id. at 728-29 (citing INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 , 302 (2001)). Accordingly, the Court was clear that for the writ of habeas corpus, or its substitute, to function as an effective and proper remedy in this context, the court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to correct errors that occurred during the earlier proceedings. Id. at 786. This includes some authority to assess the sufficiency of the Governments evidence against the detainee. Id. The Court provided its clearest and most definitive articulation of the principles governing the application of constitutional provisions abroad. Although the Court was tasked with deciding the narrow question of whether aliens designated enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay had the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, Justice Kennedy wrote a lengthy opinion for the Court that grappled with the foundations of extraterritoriality. The Court first discussed its sparse extraterritoriality precedents and found them to undermine the Governments argument that, at least as applied to noncitizens, the Constitution necessarily stops where de jure sovereignty ends. Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 755. Rather, the Court read beyond the bare holdings of these cases and concluded that they shared a common thread: the idea that questions of extraterritoriality turn on objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism. Id. at 764. Based on these considerations, the Court identified at least three factors that were relevant in determining the reach of the Suspension Clause: (1) the citizenship and status of the detainee and the quality of the process underlying this finding; (2) the nature of the sites where the apprehension and detention occurred; (3) the practical obstacles inherent in determining the detainees entitlement to the writ. Id. at 766. After analyzing these factors, the Court held that the Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. Id. at 771.