Steve Vladeck is a professor of law and the associate dean for scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. A 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, Steve clerked for Judge Marsha Berzon on the Ninth Circuit and Judge Rosemary Barkett on the Eleventh Circuit. In addition to serving as a senior editor of the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Steve is also the co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading National Security Law and Counterterrorism Law casebooks. Full bio »
Readers probably won’t be surprised that, as Professor Andrew Kent noted at the end of his guest post, I’ve already drafted a longer response to Andrew’s important and provocative new essay, “Do Boumediene Rights Expire?” — which … Read more »
[Update (11:41 a.m. EDT)]: The always reliable Josh Gerstein already had a story up on this late last night over @ Politico, which reports that an “administration official” suggested that “Friday’s filings were made in order to keep open … Read more »
Thanks to an unexpected pair of days off, I’ve finally had the chance to review Judge Bates’s October 19 rulings in Al-Maqaleh v. Gates ["Al-Maqaleh II"] and Hamidullah v. Obama. As readers know, these are the habeas … Read more »
In his post on yesterday’s decision in (what I think we should all call) Hamdan II, Jack writes “The historical arguments for a conspiracy charge in military commissions under the laws of war, while not slam dunks, are . … Read more »
Raff already shared the news re: this morning’s D.C. Circuit decision reversing Salim Hamdan’s military commission conviction for providing material support to terrorism (MST), holding that MST wasn’t a recognized violation of the laws of war prior to 2006 (when … Read more »
Today marks the five-month anniversary of the oral arguments before the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Hamdan, the first post-conviction appeal to reach the Court of Appeals under the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009 (and about … Read more »
Per Ben‘s and Bobby‘s responses to my post from earlier this week, I think one point needs to be made crystal clear: If Ben and Bobby are correct, then the phrase “substantial support” in the March 13 brief… Read more »
Based on the voluminous media and blog coverage of last week’s decision in Hedges v. Obama, in which Judge Forrest permanently enjoined at least part of the detention provision of the FY2012 NDAA [section 1021(b)(2)], one of two things … Read more »
I don’t have a lot to add to Ben’s analysis of Judge Forrest’s decision yesterday in Hedges v. Obama, permanently enjoining section 1021(b)(2) of the FY2012 NDAA (Just to refresh our memories, that section authorizes the detention of “A … Read more »
Ben beat me to it, but this morning, the D.C Circuit issued a terse order removing United States v. al Bahlul (the “other” military commission appeal) from its argument calendar (it was scheduled to be argued before Judges Henderson, … Read more »
Over at SCOTUSblog, there’s a terrific symposium underway to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of The Least Dangerous Branch, Alex Bickel’s seminal work on the Supreme Court and judicial review. My own contribution thereto–”The Passive Virtues as Means, Not … Read more »
With a hat tip to Bobby, I wanted to flag that the Fourth Circuit on Friday upheld the conviction of Sean Brehm, a non-citizen convicted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) for an offense committed against another non-citizen on … Read more »
I received the following response from Richard Klingler to my ACSblog post on Monday re: the Al-Aulaqi suit and Bivens, and thought I’d post it in its entirety (below the fold) before replying (also below the fold):
This Friday, I’ll be joining Benjamin Powell from WilmerHale (and formerly, inter alia, the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) for a Federalist Society teleforum on Clapper v. Amnesty International–the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality … Read more »
Over at the ACSblog, I have a guest post up on Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta and Ben’s suspicion that the lawsuit will go the way of Arar, Lebron, Doe, and Rasul–with courts holding that there should be … Read more »
As I noted yesterday, the highest court in the U.S. military justice system—the Article I Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”), a circuit-level court with mostly discretionary jurisdiction over each of the service branch courts of criminal … Read more »
It’s turned out to be a very big news day in national security litigation land… In addition to the extensive coverage of Aulaqi v. Panetta (to which I hope to add some thoughts of my own later tonight), I wanted … Read more »
Ben already posted last week about the new battle a-brewing over the “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) that the Department of Justice is apparently requiring counsel in the Guantanamo habeas cases to sign in order to continue meeting with … Read more »
According to various media reports, General Stanley McChrystal suggested late last month that the United States should bring back the draft if it goes to war again, arguing that the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have … Read more »
Next Wednesday at 10 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on “National Security Leaks and the Law.” Tentatively scheduled witnesses include … Read more »
For those D.C.-area Lawfarers interested in continuing the conversation Ben, Bobby, and I had in June about Boumediene‘s legacy (or lack thereof), the Constitution Project is hosting what promises to be a lively discussion of the topic @ Covington … Read more »
For D.C.-area readers, I’ll be participating in what should be a lively discussion of the current and future legal and policy issues surrounding military commissions (I suspect it will be that much livelier if Hamdan comes down in the … Read more »
Why have victims of alleged governmental misconduct arising out of post-September 11 counter-terrorism policies met with virtually no success thus far in pursuing damages claims arising out of the government’s claimed abuses? It can’t be the lack of merit to … Read more »
At the risk of boring readers who have long-since grown tired of this exchange, let me just offer three quick responses to Bobby’s thoughtful intervention in the back-and-forth between Ben and me on whether the D.C. Circuit really did actively … Read more »
Yesterday’s news out of the Supreme Court may well have obscured another significant detainee-related legal development: As Lyle Denniston has noted over at SCOTUSblog, on Friday, the en banc Ninth Circuit handed down a thoroughly fractured decision in Garcia … Read more »
Ben asks: “What are the specific ‘requirements’ the Supreme Court laid out in Boumediene or Hamdi that the D.C. Circuit has refused to honor such that habeas review is not ‘meaningful’ within the meaning of Boumediene?”
I’ve answered … Read more »
I’m pleased to see that Ben largely agrees with my reaction to the Guantanamo cert. denials. But Ben goes on to rehash a point he has made before about the meaning of “meaningful” habeas review–and with which I rather vehemently … Read more »
As Wells already noted, the Supreme Court denied certiorari today without notation or dissent in all of the seven pending Guantanamo “merits” habeas cases (i.e., cases where the central issue goes to whether the government has proven … Read more »
I’ve gotten lots of helpful feedback both on- and offline re: yesterday’s post on Clapper v. Amnesty International, and wanted to write in a bit more detail about (my understanding of) the foreign intelligence surveillance exception to the Fourth … Read more »
In light of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari yesterday to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International, I thought I’d put together a background post trying to explain why, in my view, Clapper is such … Read more »
Ben noted the non-action on the cert. petitions in the Guantanamo cases (which probably means either that the Justices aren’t sure what to do, or that someone is publishing a dissent from the decision to deny certiorari). The one case … Read more »
Our friends over at Opinio Juris are hosting a neat online symposium discussion of Professor Laura Dickinson’s book Outsourcing War and Peace: Preserving Public Values in a World of Privatized Foreign Affairs. In addition to two posts (so far) … Read more »
I’ve now had more of a chance to read through Judge Forrest’s decision Wednesday in Hedges v. Obama, which (seems to) enter a preliminary injunction against some or all of section 1021 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act. … Read more »
Ben is a far better wordsmith than I–”a little cowardly” communicates a lot more in a lot less than my post from Tuesday afternoon about why the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act does … Read more »
Out today, a 68-page opinion from Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entering a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing the substantive detention authority codified by the FY2012 NDAA … Read more »
We’ve blogged before about the “other” pending D.C. Circuit military commission case–al-Bahlul v. United States–including the petitioner’s request for initial en banc hearing. That request has now been summarily denied by the D.C. Circuit in this order… Read more »
I have thus far stayed fairly mum on the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, if for no other reason than the 150 exams (now 80) that I have to grade. That said, there’s an alarming meme emerging from the House … Read more »
As usual, SCOTUSblog has a helpful post summarizing some of the key petitions for certiorari that the Supreme Court’s nine Justices are set to review at their Conference this Friday. I just thought I’d flag it here because two of … Read more »
Whatever else one might say about Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, I think it’s safe to describe him as one of the leading contemporary advocates of judicial restraint on the federal appellate bench. After all, it was the … Read more »
I’ve blogged before about al-Shimari v. CACI International, and the larger question of whether state law tort claims may be brought against government contractors arising out of their support of military operations overseas–including their alleged complicity in torture and … Read more »
Both because of my own biases and because Wells is going to be posting more of a blow-by-blow at some point (on top of his initial reaction, which I basically share), I’ll spare readers from a comprehensive account of … Read more »
I don’t think today’s Ninth Circuit decision throwing out Jose Padilla’s damages suit against John Yoo is particularly surprising–notwithstanding the typical (albeit utterly and alarmingly inaccurate) trope about the liberal Ninth Circuit. That doesn’t mean that the suit was “baseless” … Read more »
Back in March (so, well before John Brennan’s new remarks on the issue), my friend and colleague Mike Lewis from Ohio Northern and I participated in a “teleforum” debate for the Federalist Society on the targeted killings issue, especially as … Read more »
Wells and Larkin have a more comprehensive preview in the works for Thursday’s oral argument before the D.C. Circuit in Hamdan v. United States, and I’d encourage folks to wait for their contribution to get a full sense of … Read more »
I have a longer preview of Thursday’s D.C. Circuit argument in Hamdan in the works, but wanted to jump in to offer a couple of quick thoughts on the (surprising) argument order issued by the panel today (which Raff … Read more »
For New York-area readers, the American Constitution Society and the Brennan Center for Justice are co-sponsoring an “intra-progressive” debate tonight at the Brennan Center, featuring Marty Flaherty from Fordham and yours truly. In particular, we’ll explore the constitutional legitimacy of … Read more »
Further to my post from last Thursday on the Ex Post Facto Clause issue in the Nashiri prosecution, Haridimos Thravalos has sent in a response, which I’ve posted in its entirety below the fold. I’ll have a couple of reactions … Read more »
Rumor has it that sometime this week (perhaps as early as tomorrow), Congressmen Scott Rigell (R-VA) and Jeff Landry (R-LA) will introduce a bill titled the “Right to Habeas Corpus Act.” In short, the bill would “firmly state that … Read more »
Notwithstanding the Lawfare love-in, I’m a bit troubled by one of the threads that appeared to emerge from the argument in Nashiri over whether conspiracy is a recognized violation of the laws of war. Based on Ben’s summary, it … Read more »
Pardon the interruption from the wall-to-wall Nashiri coverage, but before it disappears too far into the past, I wanted to flag United States v. Ali–a case in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”) heard oral … Read more »
Monday, May 20, 2013
As Jack posted yesterday—and as everyone is buzzing about—President Obama will give a major counterterrorism speech on Thursday at the National Defense University. The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and Politico all report on the talk, and subjects that the President will likely address.
Speaking of Jack, he noted another of today’s big stories: the Washington Post’s piece on the FBI’s search, a few years… Read more »
