Skip to content

Tag Archives: Hedges v. Obama

Today’s Stunner from the Supreme Court

By
Monday, April 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

Denied without comment today, by the United States Supreme Court: the petition for a writ of ceritorari in Hedges v. Obama. 

A Cert Petition in Hedges v. Obama

By
Monday, December 30, 2013 at 3:00 PM

It was filed two Mondays ago, evidently, in this long-running detention case; I’ve only seen the Westlaw version, which interested readers can access here.

Motions on Clapper‘s Implications for Standing in the Hedges Second Circuit Appeal

By
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM

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 similar argument last May, before the Court decided Clapper.) Hedges, you will recall, is a challenge to the . . .
Read more »

Peter Margulies on Clapper

By
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 7:20 AM

Peter Margulies of Roger Williams School of Law writes in with the following comments on yesterday’s Clapper decision: The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday in Clapper v. Amnesty International reads at first like a substantial narrowing of standing doctrine.  However, closer examination reveals a more modest decision geared to courts’ institutional weaknesses in intelligence cases.  Justice Alito’s . . .
Read more »

Jens David Ohlin on Giving Up Support Offenses After Hamdan and Hedges

By
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 7:04 AM

Cornell’s Jens David Ohlin has this interesting post over at his LieberCode blog, arguing that support offenses are far less necessary than Americans tend to think. It opens: A pair of recent court decisions have thrown into stark relief the continuing obsession by our governmental leaders with the legal category of “support”– a concept that . . .
Read more »

More Hedges: If Substantial Support < Material Support…

By
Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM

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 and section 1021(b)(2) of the FY2012 NDAA should be understood as a proper subset of “material support” . . .
Read more »

More on “Substantial Support”, “Material Support,” LOAC, and the First Amendment

By
Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 11:41 PM

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 expand on the point that the NDAA’s “substantial support” language should be understood to be no more . . .
Read more »

What Hedges Could Have Said…

By
Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM

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 is true: Either Judge Forrest was exactly right, or she was utterly, if not egregiously, wrong (or both). Now . . .
Read more »

David Remes on Hedges

By
Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:53 AM

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 her treatment of the NDAA/AUMF issue and related procedural questions. I encourage readers to savor the judge’s . . .
Read more »

Hedges and the Feinstein Amendment

By
Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM

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 person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in . . .
Read more »

Judge Forrest Issues Permanent Injunction in Hedges

By
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I haven’t read it yet, but here it is.

More Detailed Account of the Hedges Argument

By
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 7:56 AM

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 committing or aiding terrorism. At a Tuesday hearing, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest pointed to the . . .
Read more »

Hedges Argument Account from the Village Voice

By
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM

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 probably would have missed it anyway. There hasn’t been much press on the hearing–at least not . . .
Read more »

Reply in Support of Permanent Injunction Filed in Hedges

By
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

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 the NDAA.) The reply begins as follows: In its essential thrust the government asserts that since the NDAA . . .
Read more »

Government Files Brief Opposing Permanent Injunction in Hedges

By
Tuesday, July 24, 2012 at 9:32 PM

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 submit this memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against the operation of a portion of . . .
Read more »

A Followup on Mr. Lucas Vazquez

By
Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I was distressed this evening to receive a note from Ms. Tangerine Bolen, executive director of RevolutionTruth and one of the plaintiffs in the Hedges case, in response to this post from the other day. In that post, I had poked fun at a gentleman named Lucas Vazquez for having confused me with a certain other . . .
Read more »

Plaintiffs Seek Permanent Injunction in Hedges

By
Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 7:25 AM

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 the motion for permanent injunction–either in my own persona or disguised as a certain other blogger who writes on . . .
Read more »

My Own Personal Moment of Zen

By
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I received the following email just now–the first time in my life, and I suspect the last, that I ever been confused with a certain blogger over at Salon.com: From: Lucas Vazquez To: [email protected] Subj: NDAA Lawsuit Q&A Invitation Hello Mr. Greenwald, I am a volunteer on the Hedges v. Obama NDAA lawsuit. I work . . .
Read more »

Government Motion for Reconsideration in Hedges

By
Friday, May 25, 2012 at 9:03 PM

The government has moved for reconsideration in the Hedges case. The government summarizes its argument as follows: Defendants in the above-captioned action (the “government”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Opinion and Order dated May 16, 2012 (the “Order”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), 59(e), and 60(b), . . .
Read more »

The Government’s Litigating Position in Hedges

By
Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM

In my post this morning on Hedges, I wondered whether government counsel had made the court aware of the Obama administration’s strong position against military detention for citizens and for anyone captured domestically. The answer appears to be that it did so, at least in part. In response to my post, someone sent me one of the government . . .
Read more »