Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: PrawfsThe Moment of Truth for Military Commissions, and the Jurisdictional Bar that Might Get in the Way...
By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel
How Appealing and SCOTUSblog have both already noted the petition for a writ of mandamus filed yesterday in the D.C. Circuit by military lawyers for Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, seeking to have some of the central provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 invalidated -- and seeking, in effect, to bring the military commission process to a screeching halt. As the petition argues,
I happen to think there is substantial merit to many of the substantive arguments advanced in the petition, for reasons I hope to write more about next week. In the interim, though, I wanted to flag what I suspect the government's response will harp upon -- the argument that the D.C. Circuit lacks jurisdiction to even consider the petition's claims.
Although the Military Commissions Act confers jurisdiction upon the D.C. Circuit to review final judgments of military commissions, it constrains both the scope and timing of that jurisdiction (see 10 U.S.C. 950g). Mandamus might lie in any event under the All Writs Act (if the underlying claims have merit), since there is a solid argument that it would be appropriate to protect the appellate jurisdiction that the MCA already gives the D.C. Circuit after the fact.
The problem is a separate provision of the MCA -- 10 U.S.C. 950j(b):
Bin Al-Shibh's petition offers several arguments for why 950j(b) may not apply to his case. If it does, though, it may well be unconstitutional. I have argued elsewhere that part of what the Suspension Clause protects is a right to collaterally attack one's amenability to military jurisdiction--and to do so before trial, to vindicate one's right not to be tried. If that's true (the Supreme Court has often hinted at this, but never explicitly so held), then 950j(b) would be unconstitutional to the extent that it precludes pre-trial challenges that go to the commission's jurisdiction.
So, this may be the moment of truth for military commissions--or, at the very least, for whether those who are protected by the Suspension Clause have a concomitant right to contest the jurisdiction of a military tribunal before being subjected thereto...
Full post as published by Prawfs on September 12, 2009 (boomark / email).
Posse Comitatus Act
Limits on federal use of the military for law enforcement
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 3
Other Benefits
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 4
Where to get help
Military Veterans Benefits
How to obtain full range of benefits for veterans and dependnets
Military Veterans Benefits, Part 2
Training, Healthcare, and Death Benefits
Chevy Chase Bank
lawsuit claims the bank is in violation of the Truth in Lending Act

Jurisprudence of the Military Commissions - Jurisdictional Issues
What Do Vacuums and the Military Commissions Have in Common
Jurisprudence of the Military Commissions - Discovery and Evidentiary Issues
Obama Cant Fix the Military Commissions
Watch It: Obama Speech on Guantánamo Military Commissions Thursday Morning








