Al-Marri v. Spagone
| Docket No. | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08-368 | Not Argued | Mar 6, 2009 | TBD | TBD | OT 2008 |
Issue: Whether Congress, in passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, authorized the indefinite military detention of a legal immigrant seized on domestic soil whom the government alleged to have conspired with al Qaeda to carry out attacks against the United States.
Judgment: Vacated in a summary disposition order on March 6, 2009.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Al-Marri detention case ended
- U.S. denies manipulating Al-Marri case
- Al-Marri: Case should go ahead
- U.S. would leave detention power unsettled
- U.S. charges Al-Marri, seeks end of Court case
- Will Charging al-Marri Relieve the Government of Having to Take A Position On the Merits of his Claims?
- Court trial for Al-Marri?
- Wide support for Al-Marri
- Today's Filing in Al-Marri v. Spagone
- Court extends time for U.S. brief in Al-Marri case
Briefs and Documents
Merit briefs- Brief for Petitioner Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri
- Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, To Vacate The Judgment Below And Remand With Directions To Dismiss The Case As Moot
- Brief Opposing Motion to Dismiss
- Reply Brief In Support Of The Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, To Vacate The Judgment Below And Remand With Directions To Dismiss The Case As Moot
- Brief for Former Federal Judges and Former Senior Justice Department Officials in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Muslim Advocates, the Sikh Coalition, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Japanese American Citizen's League, and the South Asian Americans Leading Together in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Civil War Historians in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and Justice in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Richard A. Epstein, Richard H. Fallon, Pamela S. Karlan, Geoffrey R. Stone, Kathleen M. Sullivan, and Laurence H. Tribe in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Historians and Scholars of Ex Parte Quirin in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Human Rights and Religious Organizations in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Founding-Era Historians and Experts in American Legal History in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for William N. Eskridge, Jr., Daniel A. Farber, and Eric Lane in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Constitutional, Criminal Procedure, and Other Legal Scholars in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Experts in the Law of War in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Former National Security Officials and Counterterrorism Experts in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Former United States Diplomats J. Brian Atwood, Harry G. Barnes, Jr., F. Allen “Tex†Harris, Samuel F. Hart, John L. Hirsch, Genta Hawkins Holmes, Gilbert D. Kulick, L. Bruce Laingen, Elijah Parish Lovejoy IV, Laurence E. Pope, Paul K. Stahnke, Alexander F. Watson in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Retired Military Officers and the National Institute of Military Justice in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the CATO Institute, the Constitution Project, and the Rutherford Institute in Support of Reversal
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief of William N. Eskridge, Jr., Daniel A. Farber, and Eric Lane (in support of petitioner)
- Brief of Professors of Constitutional Law and of the Federal Courts (in support of petitioner)
- Brief of Former Federal Judges, et al. (in support of petitioner)
- Brief of The Constitution Project, et al. (in support of petitioner)
- Brief of Retired Military Officers (in support of petitioner)
