![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumRecently I pointed out a judge had ruled the prisoners at Gitmo were shit out of luck. That so long as the Prez. elected to keep them, they were gonna have to stay put; and they had no rights to appeal to anyone for redress.
I also said it would be interesting to see what the judge who handed those cases off to him had to say in the rest of the cases. She handed down her decision today.
Interesting is the word. Diametrically opposed is the description.
In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases (02-299) Ruling.pdf and Order.pdf she said, in part, “The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that petitioners are ‘enemy combatants’ subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners’ rights to due process of law. The court also holds that at lease some of the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Third Geneva Convention.”
As Scotus Blog points out, this does not mean anyone will be released anytime soon. This ruling says those prisoners are entitled to court access, can file habeas petitions and, by extention, any other such forms of redress as any other prisoner may make.
So we have rulings in conflict. There are also more petitions in the pipeline, which will have to be ruled on. The possibility exists that a third holding may come down.
Looking at the two rulings I see hope. Green's ruling (the most recent) is more in keeping, as I see it, with the Supreme Courts finding, which led to these reviews, which means if the question gets moved to them (which it might not, the DOJ can, I believe, petition that the District Court sit on the question, en banc, it can also just take the hit on this set, and try to use the more restrictive ruling as precedent in the future. I don't think that's sound strategy, since the conflicting rulings are both in the same District, so the precidential value is weakened, as future plaintiffs will certainly use today's ruling as support for their appeals [which would be based on the more potent Supreme Court rulings in Rasul/Al Odah v. U.S. and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
Since I see this as closer to (but probably more broad than) the Supreme Court's intent, I can see them granting cert, if it gets appealed past the District Court. If that happens, I think the Feds lose, probably not as thoroughly as this ruling spanked them, but the whole store they were given a couple of weeks ago is likely to see a lot departments shuttered.
I also said it would be interesting to see what the judge who handed those cases off to him had to say in the rest of the cases. She handed down her decision today.
Interesting is the word. Diametrically opposed is the description.
In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases (02-299) Ruling.pdf and Order.pdf she said, in part, “The court concludes that the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the procedures implemented by the government to confirm that petitioners are ‘enemy combatants’ subject to indefinite detention violate the petitioners’ rights to due process of law. The court also holds that at lease some of the petitioners have stated valid claims under the Third Geneva Convention.”
As Scotus Blog points out, this does not mean anyone will be released anytime soon. This ruling says those prisoners are entitled to court access, can file habeas petitions and, by extention, any other such forms of redress as any other prisoner may make.
So we have rulings in conflict. There are also more petitions in the pipeline, which will have to be ruled on. The possibility exists that a third holding may come down.
Looking at the two rulings I see hope. Green's ruling (the most recent) is more in keeping, as I see it, with the Supreme Courts finding, which led to these reviews, which means if the question gets moved to them (which it might not, the DOJ can, I believe, petition that the District Court sit on the question, en banc, it can also just take the hit on this set, and try to use the more restrictive ruling as precedent in the future. I don't think that's sound strategy, since the conflicting rulings are both in the same District, so the precidential value is weakened, as future plaintiffs will certainly use today's ruling as support for their appeals [which would be based on the more potent Supreme Court rulings in Rasul/Al Odah v. U.S. and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).
Since I see this as closer to (but probably more broad than) the Supreme Court's intent, I can see them granting cert, if it gets appealed past the District Court. If that happens, I think the Feds lose, probably not as thoroughly as this ruling spanked them, but the whole store they were given a couple of weeks ago is likely to see a lot departments shuttered.
