I'm still sorting through the decision myself, but this is
probably the most important Supreme Court decision yet overturning
President Bush's policies in the War on Terror, even though in this
case Congress had affirmed those policies.
The decision fell along predictable ideological lines, with
Justice Kennedy acting as the tie-breaking vote and writing the
majority opinion.
Orin
Kerr excerpts some key passages from the ruling, and I think
this part clarifies where the majority was coming from:
It is true that before today the Court has never
held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over
which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights
under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise
historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive
order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from
September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest
wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military
History 849 (1999). The detainees, moreover, are held in a
territory that, while technically not part of the United States, is
under the complete and total control of our Government. Under these
circumstances the lack of a precedent on point is no barrier to our
holding.
We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution
has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If the privilege of habeas
corpus is to be denied to the detainees now before us, Congress
must act in accordance with the requirements of the Suspension
Clause. . . . The MCA does not purport to be a formal suspension of
the writ; and the Government, in its submissions to us, has not
argued that it is. Petitioners, therefore, are entitled to the
privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their
detention.
I still haven't had a chance to read the dissenting opinions
written by Scalia and Roberts, which were both joined by Alito and
Thomas.
Much more at SCOTUS blog.
topics:
Constitution, Supreme Court, Military
