Counsel for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Latest in Guantanamo: Litigation: Supreme Court
In part, the majority and dissenting opinions in al Bahlul v. United States reflect two different methodological approaches to the central question, formal or functional. But al Bahlul doesn't simply turn on whether one applies one or the other approach. So even as the majority correctly resorted to formalism in resolving al Bahlul's Article III challenge to his conspiracy conviction, properly applied, the Supreme Court's more functional approach ought to have produced the same result.
Both Judge Henderson's dissent in al Bahlul and Peter Margulies's post criticizing the al Bahlul majority assume that courts should take a functional approach to the permissible scope of the jurisdiction of non-Article III military courts--and therefore balance a series of prudential factors in determining when military courts should be allowed to try offenses or offenders not previously subject to military jurisdiction. In this post, I explain why, at a fundamental level, formalism, and not functionalism, is the appropriate analytical mode--and, therefore, why both Judge Henderson's dissent and Peter's critique miss the mark. If anything, the biggest flaw in Judge Rogers' majority opinion is its failure to do more to explain why a formalistic approach is called for in this context. This post aims to fill that gap.
Ben asks “What Would it Take to Close Guantanamo?” and he provides a thoughtful response weighted toward the political landscape. But there’s another not-so-merely-philosophical question that underlies his question: what does it mean to “close Guantanamo?”
Here's a novelty: Guantanamo detainee Abdul Razak Ali---whose case we have written about a fair bit---has filed a reply brief in response to his own cert petition. Here's how it opens:
Very interesting and thoughtful comments over at Just Security by Marty Lederman on Justice Breyer's brief opinion in the Hussain cert denial the other day. Marty writes:
The D.C. Circuit has just handed down a 12-page decision in Abdullah v. Obama, affirming the district court's denial of Abdullah's motion to enjoin the U.S. government from detaining him. Hani Saleh Rashid Abdullah, a Yemeni national, claimed his detention at Guantanamo violates a 1946 executive agreement between the U.S.
Shortly before Christmas, counsel for Guantanamo detainee Mukhtar Yahia Naji Al Warafi filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in his habeas petition, having been denied earlier this year an en banc rehearing in the D.C. Circuit.
It's a big week at the Supreme Court, but Guantanamo habeas heads will not want to miss this development: the cert denial in Obaydullah on Monday. Steve wrote about this cert petition here, and coverage of the D.C. Circuit ruling is available here.
Five years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 decision in Boumediene v. Bush, holding that the Constitution's Suspension Clause "has full effect" at Guantánamo Bay, and that the review scheme provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was an inadequate substitute for the judicial review thus required by the Constitution.