Skip to content

Tag Archives: Royce Lamberth

Response Brief in Counsel Access Case, Hatim v. Obama

By
Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Guantanamo detainees have filed their response brief in the D.C. Circuit appeal of Hatim v. Obama, the “counsel access” case. As in other ongoing litigation, the government had moved for extending the filing deadlines, but the government is back up and running now, so presumably so are all these cases (the appellees, before the government reopened, . . .
Read more »

The D.C. Circuit and the Guantánamo Detainees’ Right of Access to Counsel

By
Monday, September 23, 2013 at 3:31 AM

In describing Hatim v. Obama (the D.C. Circuit Guantánamo appeal in which the government filed its opening brief on Friday) as the “counsel access” case, Raff has hit the nail on the head. Although the appeal involves the district court’s power to enjoin new security procedures adopted by the government at Guantánamo (the same genital search procedures that . . .
Read more »

The Government’s Opening Brief in the Counsel Access Case

By
Saturday, September 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM

The government has filed its opening, appellant brief in Hatim v. Obama, the “counsel access case” before the D.C. Circuit. Before describing the brief, a bit of background is in order: this past summer, Senior District Court Judge Royce Lamberth partially invalidated recently-instituted search protocols for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. These procedures were mandatory prior . . .
Read more »

An Update in the GTMO Counsel Access Case in the D.C. Circuit

By
Monday, August 5, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Two developments in Hatim et al. v. Obama et al., the D.C. Circuit case regarding JTF-GTMO’s detainee access procedures for defense counsel: one, the filing of additional briefing regarding the stay of a lower court order; and two, a dispute over a filing deadline. By way of background, GTMO rules had required detainees to undergo genital-area searches . . .
Read more »

Chief Judge Lamberth, Counsel Access, and the Guantánamo Mail

By
Monday, May 6, 2013 at 9:05 PM

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 by the detainees). Now, those two themes have merged in a new decision by Chief Judge . . .
Read more »

Ramzi Kassem on Chief Judge Lamberth’s Barre Decision

By
Monday, April 1, 2013 at 6:32 PM

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) versions of filings by the detainees in their habeas cases. Over the weekend, I received the following reply from . . .
Read more »

Chief Judge Lamberth on the Government’s Foot-Dragging in the Guantánamo Habeas Cases

By
Monday, March 25, 2013 at 9:24 AM

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 fight between detainee counsel and the government over classified information in filings by the detainees in their habeas cases. The . . .
Read more »

Guantanamo Civil Action Dismissed

By
Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 6:41 AM

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a civil suit by several former Guantanamo detainees arguing that they were subject to wrongful detention and harsh treatment at the base. His decision opens: The six plaintiffs in this action—Yuksel Celikgogus, Ibrahim Sen, Nuri Mert, Zakirjan Hasam, Abu Muhammad, . . .
Read more »

New D.C. District Court Orders in Obaydullah and Alhag Guantánamo Habeas Cases

By
Friday, February 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

The D.C. district court issued two Guantánamo-related orders on Wednesday. The first involved something of a triple habeas Hail Mary: Judge Richard Leon denied Obaydullah’s (no last name) motion for relief from (1) the court’s March 2012 denial of the petitioner’s classified (and thus unavailable) motion for reconsideration of (2) the court’s October 2010 denial . . .
Read more »

DOJ Comes To Its Senses; Drops Guantanamo MOU Appeal

By
Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM

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 to dismiss the appeal, which, barring something very strange, will almost certainly be granted by the . . .
Read more »

Closing the MOU Loop: My PENNumbra Response to Andrew Kent on Why Boumediene “Rights” Don’t “Expire”

By
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Back in early November, Ben and I blogged about Fordham Professor Andrew Kent’s provocative new essay, “Do Boumediene Rights Expire?,” which he published in “PENNumbra,” the online companion to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Although I offered some quick reactions to Andrew’s essay in my original post, I also noted that I had a . . .
Read more »

Another Bagram Habeas Petition Dismissed

By
Saturday, November 17, 2012 at 4:07 PM

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 Judge Bates). Note: The petitioner is identified as Amanatullah…I do not know if this is . . .
Read more »

Why Boumediene “Rights” Don’t “Expire”: A Response to Professor Kent

By
Monday, November 5, 2012 at 10:12 AM

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 should be published by “PENNumbra,” the online companion to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, later this month. . . .
Read more »

DOJ Jumps Shark, Notices Appeal of Lamberth MOU Ruling

By
Saturday, November 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM

[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 the option of an appeal and that no final decision has been made about whether to see an appeal . . .
Read more »

Warafi Oral Argument Summary

By
Friday, September 21, 2012 at 2:50 PM

I had to restrain myself this morning at the D.C. Circuit from interrupting proceedings with an emergency request for an on-the-spot ruling in Wittes v. FAA—a case which has admittedly does not exist—that the agency’s action with respect to the Lawfare Drone Smackdown is arbitrary and capricious. Restrain myself I did, for the issue of . . .
Read more »

Judge Lamberth Corrects His Error; the New York Times Repeats It

By
Saturday, September 8, 2012 at 2:08 PM

I have largely suspended my campaign of fact-checking New York Times editorials, but this one is too good to pass up. In his opinion the other day on counsel access issues at Guantanamo, Judge Royce Lamberth—as Wells noted—made a minor factual error. “It is a sad reality that in the ten years since the first detainees . . .
Read more »

Warafi Briefs and Oral Argument

By
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 10:17 AM

The D.C. Circuit will hear its second round of arguments in the case of Mukhtar Yahia Naji Al Warafi on September 21. Warafi is an interesting Guantanamo habeas case with an interesting and unique history. Judge Royce Lamberth first denied Makhtar Al-Warafi’s habeas petition some time back on grounds that he was part of Taliban forces and, while he claimed to . . .
Read more »

David Remes’ Overview of the GTMO Counsel Access Dispute

By
Thursday, August 16, 2012 at 1:47 PM

David Remes, an attorney for Guantanamo habeas petitioners Uthman and Esmail, has sent in this overview of the ongoing Guantanamo counsel access dispute. In brief: Remes and others recently objected to the Department of Justice’s proposed “Memorandum of Understanding,” or “MOU” – which would, among other things, regulate future meetings between Remes and his two clients, . . .
Read more »

The Latest Salvo(s) in the Battle for GTMO Counsel Access

By
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 at 3:44 PM

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, Al-Mudafari and Al-Mithali, and Al-Baidany yesterday filed replies to the government’s response brief regarding counsel access.  (Counsel . . .
Read more »

On Continued Counsel Access at Gitmo and the Government’s Filing

By
Friday, July 27, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Wells posted yesterday the government’s filing on the question of continued access to counsel for Guantanamo detainees who have lost their habeas cases. I have now read through the motion, and I have to say, I’m a little perplexed. To be fair, the motion doesn’t really address the merits of the matter squarely. It is, . . .
Read more »