Guys, don’t wear long hair in Dallas. Parents, don’t take your children to Texas.
The Constitution remains a brilliant aspiration. Making it real is a never-ending project.
Guys, don’t wear long hair in Dallas. Parents, don’t take your children to Texas.
The Constitution remains a brilliant aspiration. Making it real is a never-ending project.
Nobody saw this one coming: The Fourth Circuit shows some serious moxie and asks for briefs as to whether it should vacate its (awful) decision as moot; this will make the government put up or shut up as to whether it plans to waive any claim to label Padilla as an ‘enemy combatant’ in the future.
See SCOTUSblog: Government rebuffed on Padilla for the details.
As the legal world knows by now, the United States this morning unveiled an indictment against Jose Padilla, the man formerly known as the “dirty bomber” — to be tried here in Miami some time next year. (See Marty Lederman for details and atmosphere.) The Washington Post reports that “Padilla will be transferred from a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina to Justice Department custody at a federal detention facility in Miami, according to an order signed by Bush on Sunday,” which appears to be here, and which was followed by the government’s Unopposed Emergency Application and Notice of Release and Transfer to Custody of Petitioner Jose Padilla, filed today.
It’s a bittersweet moment for the rule of law. On the one hand, getting Padilla out of the ranks of the disappeared and into the ordinary criminal justice system is a good thing, and it’s mildly cheering that even this administration fears even this Supreme Court enough to want to prevent it from ruling on the asserted power to grab any citizen, anywhere, and hold him or her without regard to the Bill of Rights for as long as the President is minded to order.
On the other hand, this decision to charge comes rather late, at the eleventh hour, and risks leaving in place a circuit court decision with draconian implications for Presidential power. The precedent set by this case — including that of justice delayed to the point of denial — cannot, should not, must not be allowed to stand. So long as our government claims the power to lock any one of us up in solitary, indefinitely, without trial, on the unsupported say-so of any official no matter how highly placed, we can give ourselves no airs before the other authoritarian regimes of the Americas.
Although originally rumored more than a year ago (!) the latest moves in the Padilla case are striking developments in several ways.
I am one of the 450 law professors who signed a statement calling on the Supreme Court to grant review of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (No. 05-184), a case challenging the President’s creation of military commissions to try “unlawful combatants”:
We, the undersigned law professors at many law schools, urge that lawyers, jurists, and the public take every opportunity to reassert the rule of law, to reiterate America’s constitutional commitments, and to insist on humane treatment that gives each person a fair opportunity to be heard before impartial tribunals, not ones controlled by the executive.
Thanks are due to to Bruce Ackerman (Yale), David Cole (Georgetown), Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks (Virginia), Deena Hurwitz (Virginia), and Judith Resnik (Yale) for organizing the letter.
Although I completely agree with the text of the statement, I do feel ever so slightly odd about this project because letters like this shouldn’t actually influence what the Supreme Court does. And, I suspect, they don’t actually influence it either. So the project is arguably in poor taste, and probably futile. But I do believe that the issue is of enormous importance … and what else can we do?
My colleague Stephen Vladeck has a guest column at JURIST in which he looks at Jose Padilla and the Mulligan Problem. It’s a very clear explanation that should appeal to both lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Other people will no doubt have a plethora of reactions to this rather heated debate over the Patriot Act between U.Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone and Professor-Judge Richard Posner. I’m afraid that my initial reaction was that I think I’d really like Chicago (a law school which I’ve only ever visited once, and then only too briefly to get a feel for the place).