Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal Research

: New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library

ABA: U.S. Supreme Court Update, Boumediene v Bush, President of the United States

By David Badertscher, PLL

ADVERTISEMENTS

Supreme Court Update: A Service from the

Criminal Justice Section (www.abanet.org/crimjust )

The following is an analyis of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Boumedine v. Bush, President of the United States by the ABA Criminal Justice Section. Also included is a statement about the ruling by William H. Neukom, President of the American Bar Association:

BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

By a 5 to 4 vote, the US Supreme Court ruled that

prisoners have the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts and be given the right to demand to know on what grounds they are being kept in custody.

?The Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom. Experience taught, however, that the common-law writ all too often had been insufficient to guard against the abuse of monarchial power,? said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court. ?That history counseled the necessity for specific language in the Constitution to secure the writ and ensure its place in our legal system.?

The ruling does not spell out the way in which federal judges should handle the detainees? claims.

?It bears repeating that our opinion does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners? detention. That is a matter yet to be determined,? Kennedy said. ?We hold that petitioners may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus. The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the dissenters.

Click on the following link to access the full opinion. If you cannot click on the link, copy and paste it into your browser. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf

American Bar Association President William H. Neukom issued the following statement on the ruling:

?Today?s ruling reaffirms the vision of our founders, and helps restore the credibility of the

as a leading advocate and model for the rule of law across the globe. It will solidify our relations with other nations, and will protect Americans abroad. The American Bar Association cares deeply about protecting our national security, while preserving the liberties enshrined in our Constitution. Habeas corpus is the cornerstone of the rule of law in the

. Adhering to this fundamental tenet of our legal system will simply require that we provide a fair process for determining which detainees should continue to be detained.

courts have risen to the challenge of hearing cases involving national security for more than 200 years. They can and will continue to do so.?

Full post as published by New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library on June 13, 2008 (boomark / email).