The full opinion is here. The key bit (p. 2): "Because this Court answers the jurisdictional question in the negative, it does not reach the question whether the President has authority to detain Padilla militarily."
Unbelievable. I can understanding punting on the Pledge case, but how could they do it on this?
Still reading...maybe there is an explanation.
UPDATE: Better news in the almost-as-important Hamdi case, involving a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan, but now held in the U.S. Full opinion is here. Key bit (page 2): four Justices (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Breyer) "concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." Souter and Ginsburg "concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant." (The dissenters: Scalia and Thomas--of course--and, oddly, Stevens...don't yet know why.)
This means there are almost certainly six votes for the same result for Padilla (whose claim for constitutional protection is even stronger, since he was arrested in the U.S.), once the procedural problems are cured. That's good news. Now the question is: why did the Court handle it this way? One possibility is to not deliver too many defeats to the Administration on one day; the writing is on the wall in the Padilla case, and so the Bush Administration has a chance to back down from its fascist posture in this case.
But still reading....
ANOTHER UPDATE: A colleague writes: "The Supremes partially reversed the Hamdi decision today, ruling that he has a right to challenge his detention and a right to counsel. They declined to rule on the merits in Padilla (a GVR [grant, vacate, remand] in light of Hamdi?). They reversed the D.C. Circuit in Rasul, holding (6:3, opinion by Stevens), that habeas jurisdiction extends to the Guantanamo detainees."
Good decisions! Hope for America!
STILL MORE: Via Stuart Benjamin (Law, Duke):
"I was struck by the dissent's language in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. The majority didn't reach the merits, because it found that the case had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction. Stevens' dissent (joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) focused on the jurisdiction/venue issue, but (because in his view the Court should have reached the merits) his dissent ends with his view of the merits. Here it is, in its entirety (except that I have omitted the footnotes):
'Whether respondent is entitled to immediate release is a question that reasonable jurists may answer in different ways. There is, however, only one possible answer to the question whether he is entitled to a hearing on the justification for his detention.
'At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society. Even more important than the method of selecting the people's rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber. Access to counsel for the purpose of protecting the citizen from official mistakes and mistreatment is the hallmark of due process.
'Executive detention of subversive citizens, like detention of enemy soldiers to keep them off the battlefield, may sometimes be justified to prevent persons from launching or becoming missiles of destruction. It may not, however, be justified by the naked interest in using unlawful procedures to extract information. Incommunicado detention for months on end is such a procedure. Whether the information so procured is more or less reliable than that acquired by more extreme forms of torture is of no consequence. For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.'
"This is pretty strong language. And it seems quite possible that, in another case where venue was proper, one or more of the five who didn't reach the merits would agree."
My only comment: strong language, but still not strong enough. Three cheers for Justice Stevens!
MORE ON PADILLA: From a colleague: "The Ct ruled 5:4 in Padilla, saying that the Southern District of New York did not have jurisdiction -- that he had to sue in South Carolina to prevent habeas forum shopping. The fact that the government had forum shopped by removing Padilla from the SDNY to place him in the 4th Cir. apparently escaped the majority's attention."
UPDATE: More on Hamdi here.
Recent Comments