E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The petitioners in the Guantanamo habeas cases and their amici have filed top-side merits briefs in the Supreme Court. The case will likely be argued in December. We've got all the links over at SCOTUSblog.
As I note over there, the Boumediene case is not limited to the habeas question to which so much attention has been paid. The second question presented by that petition ("[w]hether Petitioners’ indefinite military imprisonment as 'enemy combatants' is unlawful, requiring the grant of habeas relief") is directed at the issue of identifying the category of persons who Congress has authorized the military to indefinitely detain. Part II of the Boumediene brief addresses this question.
There are many fine amicus briefs filed. I found especially noteworthy the brief on behalf of specialists in Israeli law, which discusses the procedures and substantive rules that Israel uses in its analogous terrorism detention practices. The Israeli courts and legislature have been giving these questions considerable attention for a much longer period than has our legal system. Posted
10:02 AM
by Marty Lederman [link]
Comments:
Fortuntely, I'm with Scalia about using any current FOREIGN courts and legislatures for precedential value.
Ever since the aftermath of the Diggs Taylor decision in 2006, rare has been the time I perused Denniston's site, though it is very worthwhile. The link to the court briefs there today is one such valuable occasion. The reality is the world still is developing a place for international law, and the 1948 redraw of Levantine maps is part of the lag in that process. I see a test approaching once again for the US supreme court, to discern the three threads of these separate cases. Writing now nearly a week after the original article and filing of the amici briefs, there appears to be Dept of Justice turmoil once again adding to the political mystery of how energetic the administration intends to be in this year when it would like a didactic chain of outcomes but must contemplate the issues of due process which have proved to be difficult thresholds these past five plus years for it. Back to reading the brief, now.
Hoping the blog software publishes this only once. JL