Earlier this week, the Supreme Court decided not to review the case of Suleiman v. Obama. No surprise there; the justices hardly seem to wish to wade into detention issues these days.
Latest in Detention: Law of: Supreme Court Development
Remember Suleiman v. Obama? That's the habeas case in which the petitioner had claimed, among other things, that he could not be detained because he was merely a Taliban functionary who never took up arms against the United States. The district court rejected Suleiman's arguments, as did the court of appeals. Citing prior decisions, the latter concluded that Taliban membership alone could support detention. The D.C.
I'm happy to report that I've recently completed drafting an article that has been much on my mind for the past few years. Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism (Michigan Law Review, forthcoming 2013) is now posted to SSRN. In it, I argue that (i) there is a widespread perception that the legal framework for detention and targeting has reached a point of relative stability thanks to a remarkable wave of interbranch and inter-party consensus since 2008; (ii) this facade depends almost en
For those D.C.-area Lawfarers interested in continuing the conversation Ben, Bobby, and I had in June about Boumediene's legacy (or lack thereof), the Constitution Project is hosting what promises to be a lively discussion of the topic @ Covington & Burling on Tuesday, July 17, from 12-1:30 p.m.
The panel features former D.C. District Judge James Robertson, Brian Foster from Covington, me, and one more player to be named later.
One of the more obscure habeas cases of the last few years has been El Falesteny v. Obama. The case's key documents were sealed, both on appeal to the D.C.
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.
Steve's mention earlier that he was positively soft on the D.C. Circuit compared to the Times reminded me that we haven't seen any sign yet of the inevitable editorial bashing the justices for failing to rebuke the rogues in robes who have so craftily undone the justices' handiwork. Get on it, guys. You're letting your fans down.
At the risk of boring readers who have long-since grown tired of this exchange, let me just offer three quick responses to Bobby's thoughtful intervention in the back-and-forth between Ben and me on whether the D.C.
I'm pleased to see that Ben largely agrees with my reaction to the Guantanamo cert. denials. But Ben goes on to rehash a point he has made before about the meaning of "meaningful" habeas review--and with which I rather vehemently disagree:
I cannot say that the system the D.C. Circuit has created, warts and all, is inconsistent with a district court’s conducting a meaningful review of the evidence—though it certainly requires a relatively deferential review both on the law and on the facts.
Being in a time zone very far from home, I am late to the discussion of the cert denials in the Guantanamo cases. I have only one thought to offer beyond what Steve said earlier--with which I almost entirely agree.
There will surely be a cascade of commentary now to the effect that the Supreme Court has acquiesced to the D.C. Circuit's gutting of Boumediene. That cascade has already begun.