The D.C. Circuit has released a less-redacted version of its Latif opinion. I haven't read it yet, but the D.C. Circuit Review web site has and notes that the new version offers significantly more information about the underlying intelligence report than did the still-more-heavily redacted version released last year.
Latest in Latif
Two new amicus briefs concerning the petition for a writ of certiorari in Latif. The first is on behalf of thirteen retired federal judges, who offer four main arguments:
I don't normally agree on detention policy matters with Seton Hall's Mark Denbeaux--and there's certainly some rhetoric in this piece in Jurist that I would never use and conclusions I do not reach. That said, I recommend it to those interested in why Latif is a big deal, a point I have made more than once myself.
The cert petition in Latif has been filed. So far, only the questions presented have been released publicly. They are as follows:
Peter Margulies of Roger Williams University School of Law has sent in two accounts of panel discussions at the annual meeting of the American Association of Law Schools. Here is the first:
Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First writes in with the following comments on Latif and the detention provisions of the NDAA:
Sabin Willett, who represented the Guantanamo Uighurs in Parhat and Kiyemba, writes in with the following comments about Latif:
Over at the Empty Wheel blog, Marcy Wheeler has a very impressive set of speculations regarding what the mysterious Report at issue in Latif (which I discuss at length here) might be. Here's her bottom line:
The D.C. Circuit strongly disfavors en banc review. For longstanding cultural reasons, the court avoids en bancs whenever possible. This is generally a good thing. En bancs can be ugly; they stress a court's collegiality. The Latif case, however, should probably overcome the court's allergy to en bancs. I don't know whether Latif's lawyers will ask the full court to rehear the matter.
The more I study the D.C. Circuit decision in Latif, the more important I think it is, and the more regrettable I think it probably is. I'm going to spread this out over two posts. In this one, which is going to be very long, I'm going to describe in some depth the arguments in both the majority opinion by Judge Janice Rogers Brown and the dissenting opinion by Judge David Tatel.