Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Receive IM, Email or Mobile alerts when new content is published on this site.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Supreme Court to hear Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas cases
Jeannie Shawl at 11:15 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] Friday agreed to hear the appeals [order list, PDF] of Guantanamo Bay detainees who are seeking habeas corpus review of their detentions. The Court denied petitions for certiorari [PDF text; JURIST report] in April, but reversed itself Friday:
The petitions for rehearing are granted. The orders entered April 2, 2007, denying the petitions for writs of certiorari are vacated. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. As it would be of material assistance to consult any decision in Bismullah, et al., v. Gates, No. 06-1197, and Parhat, et al., v. Gates, No. 06-1397, currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, supplemental briefing will be scheduled upon the issuance of any decision in those cases.
The petitions for certiorari came in the cases of Boumedienne v. Bush and al Odah v. United States, where the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in February upheld [PDF text; JURIST report] the habeas-stripping provision of the controversial Military Commissions Act [PDF text; JURIST news archive] as applied to "enemy combatants."

Under the Supreme Court's rules, five justices must vote to allow a rehearing of a petition. Only four votes are needed to initially grant a petition for certiorari, but only three justices - Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter would have allowed the cases to proceed when the Court first considered the issue in April. Justices Kennedy and Stevens filed a separate statement [PDF text] in April explaining they were rejecting the appeals merely on procedural grounds. According to SCOTUSblog:
Friday's order was an indication that those two Justices had decided that the Court needed to change its approach, and so provided the votes needed to grant rehearing. Under the Court's rules, a rehearing is granted only if there has been a change in "intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect" or if counsel can cite "substantial grounds not previously presented."
SCOTUSblog has more. AP has additional coverage.

Link | e-mail   | print | subscribe | JURIST news archive | © JURIST

For a one-stop snapshot of the latest legal news that matters, with breaking documents, new legal videos, live law-related webcasts, commentary by expert law professors and more - all updated through the day in real time, with no ads and no registration barriers - visit JURIST's homepage and check back often...


 US Army soldiers charged with premeditated murder of Iraqi nationals
11:06 AM ET, June 30

 Leahy, Conyers seek legal basis for US Attorney firings executive privilege claim
10:54 AM ET, June 30

 New Hampshire governor signs repeal of abortion parental notification law
9:57 AM ET, June 30

 click for more...


Suppressing Dissent: FBI Spying on the National Lawyers Guild

Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson Schl. Law


Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news weblog, powered by a team of 20 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.


Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at