FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Judicial Warfare in Boumediene

Much has already been written about the impact of last week’s Supreme Court’s decision, Boumediene v. Bush, on the courts, the detainees, and the Bush Administration’s “war on terror”. I would like to draw attention to something that may be between the lines—judicial warfare. The majority’s somewhat squishy rejection of the the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA)’s provisions for judicial review of detainees’ “enemy combatant” status started me thinking about this.

The DC Circuit, in ruling against Boumediene, faced two questions: whether the Guantanamo detainees had any Constitutional right to habeas corpus, and if so, did the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), having stripped them of that right under its formal name, provide an adequate substitute? The Circuit answered the first question with a “no”, and left the second unanswered. This judicial practice of avoiding questions when possible is a long-standing one, and, in general, not a bad idea, I think.

Normally, the Supreme Court, having decided that the detainees do indeed have a Constitutional right to habeas corpus, would send the case back to the DC Circuit. If that Court found the DTA to be an adequate substitute, the detainees would again appeal to the Supreme Court, where the Justices like to have the benefit of lower court opinions when they address a question.

But in this case, Justice Kennedy, writing for the Supreme Court majority, noted that some detainees have been held as long as six years. The DC Circuit would almost certainly have held the DTA, with its reliance on the infamous Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), to be an adequate substitute, and the question would have ended up before the Supreme Court again. But, as Worthington points out, this would have taken another year. The Kennedy majority, therefore, decided it could forego the benefit of the DC Circuit’s opinion, and held that the DTA did NOT provide an adequate substitute. In other words, “let’s get this process moving”.

This sent Roberts into a rage, although the majority was certainly within its rights. It happens in all courts—it’s called bypassing normal procedure “in the interest of justice”. In his dissent, Roberts threw the concept of expedition back at the majority. Habeas corpus proceedings, he noted, start at the district court level, and appeals can be had to the circuit courts and then to the Supreme Court. The DTA streamlines this by skipping the district courts.

That’s only one issue, however. A procedure substituting for habeas corpus must grant the reviewing court all the tools it needs to do justice. This means the power to review facts and grant relief, including release from custody, when appropriate. These powers were not explicitly granted to the DC Circuit by the DTA. However, as the Kennedy majority pointed out, the DTA is vague enough to be possibly interpreted as providing the DC Circuit with all the required tools.

So why find the DTA to be unconstitutional, another result which is to be avoided when possible? Kennedy claims it was because there is too much vagueness in the DTA; the Court, by reading in one power after another, would stretch the meaning Act beyond the intent of Congress. This is also to be avoided.

But the real reason may be judicial warfare. We have already noted that the DC Circuit would have almost certainly found the DTA to be an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. In fact, the DC Circuit, along with the 4th Circuit, has a reputation for being quite “conservative” (read “right-wing-ideologically-based”). I think the Kennedy majority did not want the DC Circuit deciding the facts and granting relief to the detainees.

A long-standing restraint on our appellate courts is that they do not disturb factual findings of a lower court, nor the relief it grants, unless the lower court has abused its discretion—sometimes called making “clearly erroneous” or “arbitrary and capricious” decisions. That’s a pretty high bar. If the DC Circuit consistently ruled against detainees, even in questionable cases, there would be little the Supreme Court could do. By making habeas corpus available, the Kennedy majority has placed decisions regarding facts and relief in the hands of the DC district court, where there is still a reasonable population of less-ideologically-motiveated judges. That would mitigate the DC Circuit’s bias against the detainees—and would be a skirmish in a judicial war.

To the extent that DC Circuit judges are more ideologically motivated than those on the District Court bench, the efforts of Republican presidents to shape policies through judicial appointments have been partially successfull. District court judges who follow the law impartially are unlikely to be nominated to a higher court by a Republican. If McCain wins this November, it is likely that the present skirmish will be a footnote in judicial history, as the present Supreme Court “gang of four” (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts) becomes the gang of five, putting victory in the hands of the ideologues for decades.

BOB MOSS is a retired computer programmer, current hiking trail builder and kibitzer on legal topics. The first legal issues to arouse his interest were trail use on public lands and protection of open space; after Bush v. Gore, his interests expanded to equal protection, law of war, and since the Bush Administration’s disdain for the law is unbounded, just about everything else. He may be reached at
bobmoss@bestweb.net

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

March 21, 2019
Daniel Warner
And Now Algeria
Renee Parsons
The Supreme Court and Dual Citizenship
Eric Draitser
On Ilhan Omar, Assad Fetishism, and the Danger of Red-Brown “Anti-Imperialism”
Elizabeth Keyes
Broadway’s “Hamilton” and the Willing Suspension of Reality-Based Moral Consciousness
David Underhill
Optional Fatherhood Liberates Christians From Abortion Jihad
Nick Pemberton
Is Kamala Harris the Centrist We Need?
Dean Baker
The Wall Street Bailouts, Bernie and the Washington Post
Russell Mokhiber
The Boeing Blackout
William Astore
America’s Senior Generals Find No Exits From Endless War
Jeff Hauser – Eleanor Eagan
Boeing Debacle Shows Need to Investigate Trump-era Corruption
Ramzy Baroud
Uniting Fatah, Not Palestinians: The Dubious Role of Mohammed Shtayyeh
Nick Licata
All Southern States are Not the Same: Mississippi’s Challenge
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s Sly Encouragement of Lawless Violence
Cesar Chelala
Public Health Challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean
March 20, 2019
T.J. Coles
Countdown to “Full Spectrum Dominance”
W. T. Whitney
Re-Targeting Cuba: Why Title III of U.S. Helms-Burton Act will be a Horror Show
Kenneth Surin
Ukania’s Great Privatization Heist
Howard Lisnoff
“Say It Ain’t So, Joe:” the Latest Neoliberal from the War and Wall Street Party
Walter Clemens
Jailed Birds of a Feather May Sing Together
George Ochenski
Failing Students on Climate Change
Cesar Chelala
The Sweet Smell of Madeleine
Binoy Kampmark
Global Kids Strike
Nicky Reid
Where Have All the Flowers Gone?: Requiem for a Fictional Party
Elliot Sperber
Empedocles and You and Me 
March 19, 2019
Paul Street
Socialism Curiously Trumps Fascism in U.S. Political Threat Reporting
Jonah Raskin
Guy Standing on Anxiety, Anger and Alienation: an Interview About “The Precariat”
Patrick Cockburn
The Brutal Legacy of Bloody Sunday is a Powerful Warning to Those Hoping to Save Brexit
Robert Fisk
Turning Algeria Into a Necrocracy
John Steppling
Day of Wrath
Robin Philpot
Truth, Freedom and Peace Will Prevail in Rwanda
Victor Grossman
Women Marchers and Absentees
Binoy Kampmark
The Dangers of Values: Brenton Tarrant, Fraser Anning and the Christchurch Shootings
Jeff Sher
Let Big Pharma Build the Wall
Jimmy Centeno
Venezuela Beneath the Skin of Imperialism
Jeffrey Sommers – Christopher Fons
Scott Walker’s Failure, Progressive Wisconsin’s Win: Milwaukee’s 2020 Democratic Party Convention
Steve Early
Time for Change at NewsGuild?
March 18, 2019
Scott Poynting
Terrorism Has No Religion
Ipek S. Burnett
Black Lives on Trial
John Feffer
The World’s Most Dangerous Divide
Paul Cochrane
On the Ground in Venezuela vs. the Media Spectacle
Dean Baker
The Fed and the 3.8 Percent Unemployment Rate
Thomas Knapp
Social Media Companies “Struggle” to Help Censors Keep us in the Dark
Binoy Kampmark
Death in New Zealand: The Christchurch Shootings
Mark Weisbrot
The Reality Behind Trump’s Venezuela Regime Change Coalition
Weekend Edition
March 15, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Is Ilhan Omar Wrong…About Anything?
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail