home

SCOTUS To Overturn MCA?

J covered the startling SCOTUS reversal on granting cert in the DC Gitmo detainee cases earlier and here, Orin Kerr predicts reversal:

What's remarkable about this isn't that the Supreme Court agreed to hear them, but how: the Court denied cert at first back in April, with several Justices writing opinions in the cert denial, and then granted a petition for rehearing. This is extremely unusual, and it is probably a pretty good sign that a reversal is likely.

As I argued earlier this year, Kerr believes Boumediene is in conflict (Kerr uses the professorial description of "tension") with Rasul:

It is true that a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit recently reached a contrary result. See Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1478 (2007). However, the reasoning in that decision is in obvious tension with the Supreme Court’s language in Rasul. In Boumediene, the D.C. Circuit concluded that Guantanamo Bay is part of Cuba, not the United States, and that application of the habeas statute to persons detained at the base would not be consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus. Judge Randolph rejected the relevance of Rasul in a short footnote. See id. at 992 n.10. Although the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boumediene for procedural reasons, it seems highly likely that the Court will agree to resolve this issue in a future case. Given that Judge Randolph’s approach in Boumediene is in obvious tension with the language found in the majority and concurring opinions in Rasul, it seems likely that a majority of the Supreme Court will view the case differently than did the D.C. Circuit in Boumediene.

This would be a startling development if it comes to pass.

< Webb On Iraq: The Missing Question | New Mexico Law Requires State to Produce Marijuana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Overturning? (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by RobertSchacht on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:54:48 AM EST
    I'm confused. The headline suggests that SCOTUS will overturn the MCA, but the body of the blog suggests that Roberts will manipulate Kennedy, and Roberts would be supporting the MCA, wouldn't he? Please clarify.

    Bob in HI

    Huh? (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by eric on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 04:40:24 AM EST
    I agree.  I am a lawyer and I don't understand much of what has been posted.  I am lost.

    Parent
    Boumediene is in conflict with Rasul (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:09:18 AM EST
    Rasul is a recent SCOTUS decision. SCOTUS granted cert.

    Reversal of Boumediene is likely.

    Frankly, why you are lost is not clear to me. What part of it did you not understand?

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:08:05 AM EST
    I certainly did not write a word about RPoberts "manipulating" Kennedy and Orin Kerr's post says the following:

    Supreme Court Agrees to Take Guantanamo Bay Cases: Wow -- the Supreme Court has granted cert on the D.C. Circuit's Guantanamo Bay cases, Boumediene and Al Odah. What's remarkable about this isn't that the Supreme Court agreed to hear them, but how: the Court denied cert at first back in April, with several Justices writing opinions in the cert denial, and then granted a petition for rehearing. This is extremely unusual, and it is probably a pretty good sign that a reversal is likely. My take on some the legal issues can be found in my recent Senate testimony, available here. This is what I said about the D.C. Circuit's decision that will be reviewed:

    [T]he reasoning in that decision is in obvious tension with the Supreme Court's language in Rasul. In Boumediene, the D.C. Circuit concluded that Guantanamo Bay is part of Cuba, not the United States, and that application of the habeas statute to persons detained at the base would not be consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus. Judge Randolph rejected the relevance of Rasul in a short footnote. See id. at 992 n.10. Although the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boumediene for procedural reasons, it seems highly likely that the Court will agree to resolve this issue in a future case. Given that Judge Randolph's approach in Boumediene is in obvious tension with the language found in the majority and concurring opinions in Rasul, it seems likely that a majority of the Supreme Court will view the case differently than did the D.C. Circuit in Boumediene.

    Here's my question: What are the chances that this grant will push the Bush Administration to shut down Gitmo?

    (Emphasis supplied.) No mention of Kennedy or Roberts. Did you mean to post your comment somewhere else?

    Parent

    Rasul v. Bush, 6-3 (none / 0) (#1)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 11:34:44 PM EST
    Whatever happens it will be 5-4. You will really see what influence Roberts has on Kennedy in this case as Kennedy ruled with the majority against Bush in Rasul but wrote separately in a concurrence. Since then Roberts has replaced Rehnquist, Alito has replaced O'Connor, and Kennedy has replaced Celine Dion as the World's Biggest Diva. My guess is if Roberts gets Kennedy that sequined gown he always wanted and peels his grapes for him he can twist just about any ruling he wants out of the guy.

    Pure propaganda (none / 0) (#6)
    by caramel on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    This is not going anywhere, it's pure propaganda. These men are not going to get relief, just a show to demonstrate how "fair" this administration is... It's sad to wath a justice system indulge in such obvious political games.