Skip to content

Tag Archives: David Tatel

Oral Argument Summary: Al Laithi v Rumsfeld

By and
Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM

The courtroom is nearly full at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments in Al Laithi v. Rumsfeld. It is full mostly with a large number of students—apparently both college and law-school-age students—who fill the four back-most rows. Al Laithi is a bit of a weird case for students to use as an entry point into the Guantanamo discussion: It . . .
Read more »

DC Circuit Affirms Denial of Preliminary Relief in Hunger Strike Case—But Finds No Statutory Bar to Conditions Challenge

By
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM

The panel’s decision in the closely-watched case of Aamer v. Obama was handed down this morning.  The majority opinion opens: TATEL, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Ahmed Belbacha, Abu Dhiab, and Shaker Aamer are detainees who, although cleared for release, remain held at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Protesting their continued confinement, they and other similarly situated detainees have . . .
Read more »

D.C. Circuit on Obaydullah: New Evidence Unhelpful to Detainee’s Case

By
Friday, January 24, 2014 at 4:15 PM

The D.C. Circuit, in an exceedingly brief and quickly-issued per curiam judgment, has affirmed the district court’s denial of Obaydullah’s motion regarding newly-discovered evidence related to his habeas petition. Yours truly covered the oral arguments that took place in this Guantanamo habeas case only last week at the D.C. Circuit.  That was fast. Background: prior to the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 . . .
Read more »

Oral Argument Recap: Obaydullah v. Obama, Round Two

By
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 7:53 AM

Your Lawfare team is ready with pen and paper, and bated breath, to hear oral arguments in the habeas-related appeal of Afghan detainee Obaydullah before the three-judge panel of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, and David Tatel. We’ve been here before, and were promptly kicked out, so we’re relieved . . .
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 »

D.C. Circuit’s Remand Opinion in Zivotofsky

By
Thursday, July 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

As Jack and Raffaela noted yesterday, the D.C. Circuit held in the so-called “Jerusalem passport case” that §214(d) of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act unconstitutionally intrudes upon the President’s exclusive power to recognize foreign nations. Comprehensive discussion of the case’s factual underpinnings can be found in Curtis Bradley’s post from 2011, but the facts, briefly, are as follows. The United States . . .
Read more »

Quick Reaction to CADC’s Analysis in Zivotofsky

By
Wednesday, July 24, 2013 at 6:08 PM

As Raffaela noted this morning, on remand from the Supreme Court’s rejection of the political question doctrine in Zivotofsky v. Clinton, the D.C. Circuit today held that Section 214(d) of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which requires the Secretary of State to record “Israel” as the place of birth on a U.S. citizen’s passport, is an unconstitutional intrusion on . . .
Read more »

Breaking News: D.C. Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing in Al-Bahlul

By and
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Whoa.  This is very big news—though what it means is far less clear. The D.C. Circuit has granted the government’s petition for rehearing en banc in the military commission case of U.S. v. Al-Bahlul.  It thus appears that a majority of the court’s seven active judges wish to explore the rulings of two three-judge panels, one in Al-Bahlul and . . .
Read more »

Brian Foster Follows Up on Fredman and Latif

By
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Brian Foster of Covington & Burling, responds to my comments on his earlier guest post as follows: I don’t derive a double standard merely from your sympathy for the instinct behind the Latif majority’s factual assessment. I’m focusing on the inconsistent outcomes: on the one hand, you argue the Fredman minutes should be considered unreliable as to . . .
Read more »

Brian Foster on Fredman and Latif

By
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Brian Foster of Covington & Burling, who represents several Guantanamo detainees, writes in with the following comments on my defense of CIA lawyer Jonathan Fredman—and the case of his former client, Adnan Latif: I’m interested in the basis and implications of your defense of Jonathan Fredman.  As I understand your post, you believe Fredman has been . . .
Read more »

The ACLU’s Limited Victory in the D.C. Circuit FOIA Case

By
Friday, March 15, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Judge Garland’s persuasive opinion in the ACLU FOIA case is important but narrow, and its significance for intelligence community transparency is entirely unclear. Recall that the CIA had refused to respond to the ACLU request for records pertaining to drone strikes.  The CIA’s justification for this Glomar response was that “[a]n official CIA acknowledgment that confirms or denies the . . .
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 »

Briefing on Timeliness Ordered in Hentif v. Obama

By
Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Remember the Guantanamo detention case of Hentif v. Obama?    In 2011, the government convinced the district court to reject Fadhel Hussein Saleh Hentif’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  In July of 2012, the district judge noted, on the case’s docket, his denial of the detainee’s motion to reconsider.  A redacted opinion explaining that . . .
Read more »

Bahlul D.C. Circuit Argument Postponed; Is Hamdan Nigh?

By
Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM

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, Rogers, and Tatel on Monday, September 10), and ordering “that oral argument be postponed until further order of the . . .
Read more »

No Remand in ACLU FOIA Appeal

By
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 9:37 AM

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit (Judges Tatel, Garland and Griffith) has rejected the CIA’s motion to remand in ACLU v. CIA, the FOIA action regarding the Obama Administration’s targeted killing program.  The appeal thus will be argued on September 20, as scheduled.  The reasons behind the decision are opaque; the court’s one-page order denied the CIA’s motion without explanation.  . . .
Read more »

Bahlul Files Reply Brief

By
Thursday, June 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul has filed his reply brief in his appeal of his military commission conviction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. You’ll recall that Al Bahul requested his appeal to be heard initially en banc, but that motion was denied. The government filed its respondent . . .
Read more »

The New York Times on the Cert Denials

By
Friday, June 15, 2012 at 6:14 AM

I actually don’t have much to say, now that it’s here, on the New York Times editorial on the detention case cert denials. It is almost exactly the editorial I predicted the Times would run (“the inevitable editorial bashing the justices for failing to rebuke the rogues in robes who have so craftily undone the justices’ . . .
Read more »

Thoughts on Latif #6–The Decision (Partially) Unmasked

By
Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I have written extensively on the D.C. Circuit’s Latif decision (here and here and here and here and here)–all with the I-hope-candid awareness that I did not know what lay behind the extensive redactions that mar both the opinion itself and Judge David Tatel’s dissent. The less-redacted version of the decision that came out Friday partially . . .
Read more »

One Note on Suleiman

By
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 7:50 AM

Raffaela is correct that there’s nothing terribly surprising in the D.C. Circuit’s Suleiman opinion, which was publicly released yesterday. In fact, the brief opinion–written by Judge Thomas Griffith for himself and Judges Merrick Garland and David Tatel–is notable chiefly for its routine tone in affirming a detention. Cases that were once ground-breaking–raising novel and difficult . . .
Read more »

The New York Times Calls Lawfare “Invaluable”

By
Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

At least, Adam Liptak does in a well-worth-reading column about Latif. Take that, editorial staff! On a more serious note, here’s the money quote: Latif is the next great Guantánamo case–whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear it or not. As things stand now, Judge Tatel wrote, “it is hard to see what is left of . . .
Read more »