We’ve written a fair amount already about Chief Judge Lamberth’s September 2012 decision regarding the Guantánamo detainees’ continuing right of access to counsel (not to mention his March 2013 decision criticizing the government for its foot-dragging in declassifying various filings … Read more »
That’s the gist of this report, filed earlier today by Politico’s Josh Gerstein:
A federal judge declined Monday to take action on behalf of a hunger-striking prisoner at Guantanamo Bay whose attorneys say his life is in danger
Yesterday, pursuant to Judge Thomas Hogan’s recent order, lawyers for habeas petitioner Musa’ab Omar al-Madhwani filed a brief addressing the district court’s jurisdiction to hear al-Madhwani’s emergency challenge to the conditions of his confinement at Guantanamo.
The detainee—who is … Read more »
Earlier today, in Anam et. al. v. Obama, the district court sought further briefing on its power to hear a GTMO detainee’s complaints of mistreatment by detention personnel.
Background: an April 15 hearing had been set on hunger striker … Read more »
Peter Margulies recently discussed the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA denying standing to plaintiffs challenging the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program on the ongoing litigation in Hedges v. Obama. (Steve made a … Read more »
See this letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Lietzau, on behalf of Secretary Hagel…
At bottom, it seems increasingly clear that there are two very different accounts out there about what’s happening on the ground at Guantánamo–that provided by … Read more »
Last Monday, I flagged Chief Judge Lamberth’s important new decision in a Guantánamo habeas case–Barre v. Obama–in which, among other things, he excoriated the government for how long it has taken them to release declassified (and therefore public) … Read more »
Even for those keeping up with the Guantánamo litigation, this decision by Chief Judge Lamberth, a declassified version of which was released on Friday, may have slipped under the radar. The specific issue in Barre v. Obama is yet another … Read more »
So begins this interesting opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in a habeas case brought by Guantanamo detainee Mohammed Morafa:
On a petition for a writ for habeas corpus filed by a detainee at
About six weeks ago, I flagged the (in my view, alarming) filing by the government of a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit in the Guantanamo MOU/continuing access-to-counsel litigation. Late last night, the government filed this unopposed motion … Read more »
What’s a habeas petitioner to do, if 1) current and former U.S. military officials believe that he no longer poses a significant threat, and that his law of war detention is no longer necessary; but 2) a Periodic Review Board … Read more »
Chief Judge Lamberth has granted the government’s motion to dismiss a first amended habeas petition filed by a Pakistani citizen held at Bagram, following the Circuit’s decision in al Maqaleh (and the subsequent decision on remand in that case by … Read more »
District Judge Paul L. Friedman has denied a motion for relief from judgment filed by habeas petitioner Hussain Salem Mohammad Almerfedi. (The court’s classified opinion is dated October 26; a redacted version was not released until yesterday.)
Almerfedi prevailed before … Read more »
Andrew Kent of Fordham University School of Law has a challenging new essay out on whether Boumediene rights expire–arguing provocatively that they do, notwithstanding government concessions in habeas litigation that they do not. I asked him to to summarize the … 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 »
Does anyone have any idea what this is about?
In March 2011, the government made classified filings in 10 cases involving high-value detainees. The filings have never become public, and I have been wondering for some time what they concern. … 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 »
I have now read through Al Maqaleh v. Gates and Hamidullah v. Obama, which are both brief reads. I don’t have a great deal to say about them, except that they well represent the end of the line for … Read more »
Wells already posted U.S. District Judge John D. Bates’s opinion dismissing Maqaeleh. Judge Bates also dismissed the related case of Hamidullah. I’m reading them both now and will have thoughts later today.
Judge John Bates has granted the government’s motion to dismiss in Al-Maqaleh et al v. Gates—in which detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan had petitioned for writs of habeas corpus. I’ve only glanced at the District Court’s opinion; here … Read more »
Briefing is now complete on the government’s motion to stay pending appeal in Hedges v. Obama. (You’ll recall that a circuit judge already stayed the district court’s order temporarily, pending resolution of the government’s stay request. ) The plaintiffs’ … Read more »
Petitioners yesterday filed supplementary declarations and exhibits in Al Maqaleh, better known as the after-Boumediene-does-Guantanamo-habeas-jurisdiction-run-to-Bagram case.
During a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss, the petitioners had asked to supplement the record with evidence of, among other … Read more »
So we learn from Politico’s Josh Gerstein, who filed this report yesterday.
Here’s how Gerstein’s piece begins:
The U.S. Government has for the first time issued a public list of Guantanamo prisoners cleared for release or transfer, but who
I’d like to expand on Ben’s post below in relation to Hedges and the First Amendment, focusing on the “material support”/”substantial support” issue. (I’m having to write quickly, so please excuse any typos in what follows.)
Specifically, I’d like to … Read more »
The other day, in response to Raha Wala’s comments on Hedges, I promised to address the First Amendment question at the heart of Judge Forrest’s ruling—a promise that seems to have excited David Remes. Steve Vladeck, however, beat … Read more »
Circuit judge Raymond Lohier has granted the Justice Department’s request for an interim stay of the permanent injunction in Hedges, pending the Second Circuit’s consideration of the government’s motion to stay the injunction throughout its appeal. Judge Lohier’s order … Read more »
More on the government’s ongoing effort to stay the district court’s entry of permanent injunctive relief in Hedges v. Obama: it appears that the government’s initial motion before Judge Forrest was for an “administrative” stay only—that is, the Justice … Read more »
That’s the read out from yesterday, in the Hedges case.
Here’s the government’s interim request to Judge Forrest, to stay her permanent injunction during the government’s appeal to the Second Circuit. And here’s the district court’s terse rejection of … Read more »
David Remes—who, in addition to representing several Guantanamo detainees, is a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team in Hedges v. Obama—sent in this note yesterday:
The debate on this blog about Judge Forrest’s decision has focused almost entirely on
Raha Wala of Human Rights First writes in with the following response to my comments on Hedges. My thoughts follow his critique and very-cautious defense of Judge Forrest:
Ben’s post on Judge Forrest’s opinion in Hedges I think provided
Well that sure didn’t take long [h/t: emptywheel].
There are a lot of questions one could ask about yesterday’s order in Hedges, to put it mildly. I’ll limit myself to this one: exactly what is the scope of Judge Forrest’s permanent injunction? (Steve asked posed a similar … 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 »
I have now read through Judge Forrest’s opinion in Hedges—all 112 pages of it. I have done so only briskly, and I have surely missed things in my haste. But here are some initial thoughts.
The opinion is shockingly … Read more »
I haven’t read it yet, but here it is.
Ben earlier noted an order, in which Judge John Bates instructed petitioners in Al Maqleh v. Obama to file, by no later than today, a “short summary, not to exceed two pages,” of any newly discovered facts that might … Read more »
I’m happy to report that I’ve recently completed drafting an article that has been much on my mind for the past few years. Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism (Michigan Law Review, forthcoming 2013) … Read more »
U.S. District Judge John Bates has entered the following order in Maqaleh, the case testing federal court habeas jurisdiction for detainees at Bagram:
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has received 81 petitioners’ notice that they have recently discovered facts that
Last week, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Henderson and Brown handed down a per curiam order in response to the government’s motion to remand Ravil Mingazov’s case to the District Court for consideration of his motion there under Rule … Read more »
This just in: the last words (for a few days, anyway) in the Guantanamo attorney-client access dispute now pending before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Guantanamo detainees Uthman and Esmail, … Read more »
From Courthouse New Service:
Invoking the mass detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II, a federal judge on Tuesday appeared ready to uphold her injunction against the law that lets the U.S. military detain indefinitely anyone it suspects of
I am on vacation, and blogging only minimally, so I missed this week’s hearing before Judge Katherine Forrest on the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction in Hedges. Seeing as how the argument took place in New York, I … Read more »
The plaintiffs have filed their reply in support of their request for a permanent injunction in the case of Hedges v. Obama. (Recall that plaintiffs prevailed on their motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to Section 1021 of … Read more »
Apparently prompted by David Remes’ motion regarding GTMO counsel access issues in Esmail [h/t Josh Gerstein at Politico], the government now has filed its own motion.
I’ve only glanced at the new filing, but it seems the government … Read more »
Following last week’s motions hearing in Maqaleh and Hamidullah, the cases seeking habeas jurisdiction over the detention facility at Bagram, the petitioners in Maqaleh have filed a supplemental brief arguing against the government’s motion to dismiss. Here are some … Read more »
The government has filed its brief in opposition to the plantiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction–and seeking dismissal of the case. The brief opens as follows:
Defendants Barack Obama,Leon Panetta, and the Department of Defense (collectively, the “government”) respectfully
Here’s your off-the-cuff read-out of this morning’s hearing before U.S. District Judge John Bates in Al-Maqaleh v. Gates and Hamidullah v. Obama, better known as the “can we get a little GTMO-style habeas review over U.S. detentions at Bagram” cases… Read more »
As Ben noted last month, Judge Bates recently has shown some interest in possibly moving the Boumediene-at-Bagram case, Al Maqaleh v. Rumsfeld, along toward a resolution. After several very quiet months seemingly mulling over the pleadings before him, … Read more »
Get your memo in support here. Government response due on July 23, I hear.
The original opinion striking down Section 1021 of the NDAA is available here.
And no, I will not be participating in this panel discussion of … Read more »
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
William P. Barr (former Attorney General), Jamie S. Gorelick (former Deputy AG), and Kenneth L. Wainstein (former Assistant AG for National Security) have this Times op-ed on the AP subpoena controversy. They write:
While neither we nor the critics know the circumstances behind the prosecutors’ decision to issue this subpoena, we do know from the government’s public disclosures that the prosecutors were right to investigate this leak
