Skip to content

Tag Archives: Brett Kavanaugh

Consensus on the Way Forward for an ISIL AUMF

By
Friday, February 27, 2015 at 11:30 AM

Even casual readers of this blog are likely aware of the longstanding (and thoroughly joined) debate between Ben and me with respect to how Congress ought to update / revisit the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by both Ben’s prepared testimony before yesterday’s House Armed Services Committee . . .
Read more »

Argument Recap: The Critical Difference in How al-Nashiri Loses

By
Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:03 PM

If one thing was clear from Tuesday morning’s 61-minute argument before the D.C. Circuit in In re al-Nashiri, in which a Guantánamo military commission defendant seeks to challenge on constitutional grounds the composition of the intermediate Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) assigned to hear the government’s interlocutory appeal in his case (which I previewed here), it was that . . .
Read more »

al-Nashiri Argument Preview: The CMCR’s Appointments Clause Problem

By
Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM

Next Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit (Henderson, Rogers, & Pillard, JJ.) is set to hear oral argument in In re al-Nashiri, the latest in a long-line of pre-trial disputes arising out of the Guantánamo military commission proceedings against Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed al-Nashiri, who is accused of involvement in two terrorist attacks . . .
Read more »

The D.C. Circuit’s Mandamus Jurisdiction and the Legitimacy of the Military Commissions

By
Sunday, December 7, 2014 at 11:10 AM

It now appears that the next military commissions case in which the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument is that of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (“Nashiri”), with oral argument scheduled before an as-yet unnamed three-judge panel on Tuesday, February 10, 2015. And although the underlying “merits” issue in Nashiri is hyper-narrow (whether two of the three judges set to hear . . .
Read more »

Confusing the Issues in al Bahlul

By
Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 10:11 PM

For the two people still following the exchange between me and Peter Margulies over the bottom-side briefing in the al Bahlul D.C. Circuit military commission appeal, I wanted to offer a very quick (and hopefully final) word in response to Peter’s surreply from this afternoon, in an effort to crystallize the true points of departure between . . .
Read more »

Article III and the Bottom-Side Briefing in al Bahlul

By
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Jane already flagged the merits brief filed by the U.S. government on September 17 in al Bahlul v. United States, the major challenge to the power of the Guantánamo military commissions to try non-international war crimes that was remanded by the en banc D.C. Circuit to the original three-judge panel back in July (and in which oral argument is . . .
Read more »

Article III and the al Bahlul Remand: The New, New NIMJ Amicus Brief

By
Monday, August 18, 2014 at 12:59 PM

On July 14, the en banc D.C. Circuit ruled in al Bahlul v. United States that “plain error” review applied to Bahlul’s ex post facto challenge to his military commission convictions for conspiracy, material support, and solicitation–and then upheld the first of those charges under such deferential review (while throwing out the latter two). One of the potentially unintended consequences of the Court . . .
Read more »

Judge Edwards’s Odd Concurrence in Ali

By
Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Both Raffaela and Steve have already noted the D.C. Circuit’s opinion yesterday in Abdul Razak Ali v. Obama, the latest Guantanamo habeas case. Both also took note of Senior Judge Harry Edwards’s brief opinion concurring in the judgment affirming the district court’s denial of habeas. Judge Edwards’s opinion will win notice because of its arresting conclusion . . .
Read more »

Judge Edwards and “Functionally Useless” Habeas

By
Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM

This morning’s D.C. Circuit decision in Ali v. Obama is not exactly a shocker, given the court’s ever-solidifying body of jurisprudence on the scope of the government’s power to detain non-citizen terrorism suspects at Guantánamo. In short, Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion for a (mostly) unanimous panel affirms the district court’s denial of habeas relief to Abdul Razak . . .
Read more »

Handicapping al Bahlul

By
Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 10:54 PM

Raff already outlined the issues the en banc D.C. Circuit (minus Judge Srinivasan) will confront in tomorrow’s oral argument in al Bahlul v. United States, and I have very little of substance to add to Jen Daskal’s thorough analysis over at Just Security, or Marty Lederman’s addendum thereto. Instead, I thought I’d take a slightly different tack, . . .
Read more »

Oral Argument Preview: Al-Bahlul v. United States

By
Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Monday morning, an en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul v. United States. Lawfare has covered  extensively the ins and outs of this important case, in which a Guantanamo detainee appeals his 2009 conviction by military commission for providing material support to Al Qaeda, conspiracy, . . .
Read more »

The Two Fundamental Flaws in the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Friday, July 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Raff already flagged yesterday’s filing of an amicus brief in support of the government in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal before the en banc D.C. Circuit by “former government officials, former military lawyers, and scholars of national security law,” a group that includes Ben, Ken, and two of my casebook co-authors–among others. At the . . .
Read more »

Razak Ali v. Obama: A Case of Mistaken Identity, or “Guilty By Guesthouse”?

By
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 6:30 PM

On March 8, 2011, Saeed Bakhouch, an Algerian GTMO detainee also known as Razak Ali, noted an appeal of the District Court’s January 2011 denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  Oral argument on the merits is scheduled for September 27, 2013 before D.C. Circuit Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Harry Edwards and Stephen Williams. Read Bakhouch’s . . .
Read more »

Article III Limits on Military Commissions, the (New) NIMJ Amicus Brief, and the En Banc D.C. Circuit

By
Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Wells already flagged yesterday’s news re: General Martins’ apparent skepticism about the availability of conspiracy and military commission charges in future military commission cases (at least those brought against the current Guantánamo detainees, all of whom could raise the same ex post facto argument as the one at the heart of Hamdan II). As Wells . . .
Read more »

An Explainer on Hamdan II, Al-Bahlul, and the Jurisdiction of the Guantánamo Military Commissions

By
Friday, April 26, 2013 at 10:30 AM

As Wells noted on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in Al-Bahlul v. United States. This is a very important development, as the full appeals court will now determine whether military commissions may try defendants for pre-2006 instances of “standalone” conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Al-Bahlul has . . .
Read more »

DOJ Seeks Rehearing En Banc in Bahlul to Overturn Hamdan II

By
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Back in January, we devoted a fair amount of attention to the DOJ Supplemental Brief in the al-Bahlul military commission appeal–and the rather significant internal debate within the Administration about whether to accept the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Hamdan II, or to seek to overturn it either by pursuing rehearing en banc in Bahlul (which is arguably a better . . .
Read more »

The Merits of DOJ’s Supplemental Brief in Al Bahlul

By
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Yesterday, we posted the government’s supplemental brief in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal in the D.C. Circuit, the headline of which was the government’s concession that Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion for the Court of Appeals in Hamdan II requires reversal of Bahlul’s conviction, as well. Without question, though, the far more interesting part of the brief is the . . .
Read more »

Audio of Recent ABA Standing Committee Conference

By
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 5:53 AM

The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security has released audio recordings of its recent conference in Washington. Here they all are: Day 1 – Thursday, November 29, 2012 Conference Overview and Welcome Harvey Rishikof Laurel Bellows Panel I – Role of the Courts in National Security Law: Past, Present and Future . . .
Read more »

Conspiracy and Military Commissions After Hamdan II

By
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 8:42 PM

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 . . . more powerful than similar arguments for material support.” Thus,  he “think[s] the strong suggestions . . .
Read more »

Three (Early) Observations on Judge Kavanaugh’s Analysis in Hamdan

By
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM

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 it was codified as part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006), and so the MCA . . .
Read more »