Discussion is already turning to this morning’s orders, which we covered and analyzed earlier.  At the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswire’s Kristina Peterson addresses the Court’s denial of cert. in a drug-patent dispute between generic drug manufacturer Apotex Corp. and patent-holders Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb, while the Associated Press has coverage of the Court’s decision not to hear an appeal to stop the release of documents relating to sexual abuse lawsuits against Roman Catholic priests in Connecticut.  The AP also reports that the Court will address the legality of decisions made by only two members of the National Labor Relations Board, and the Wall Street Journal has an article on the Court’s decision to let stand a government fee imposed against Daewoo Engineering and Construction Co.; the company was found to have failed to submit a fully accurate claim for government funding.  (Disclosure: Akin Gump represented the petitioner in the case.)  The Court also let stand a ruling permitting prosecutors to charge a Ku Klux Klan member with kidnapping more than 40 years after the alleged crime took place, according to the AP.

Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATE 6:20 p.m.  Solicitor General Elena Kagan notified the Supreme Court Thursday of the transfer of the four Uighur detainees to Bermuda.  She said that the government “is working diligently to find an appropriate place to resettle the remaining Uighur detainees.”  (There are 13.)  The letter can be downloaded here.  Meanwhile, the Justice Department announced the release of two other Guantanamo detainees — both to their home countries, Iraq and Chad.  A Department news release is here.

————

Four members of a Chinese Muslim (Uighur) sect who have been held prisoner for about seven years at Guantanamo Bay were released Thursday, and were transferred to live in Bermuda.  They were among 17 Uighurs who have pending in the Supreme Court a challenge to their continued detention (Kiyemba, et al., v. Obama, et al., 08-1234).

A Justice Department announcement on release of the four is here; a separate release by the Boston law firm representing some of the Uighurs — Bingham McCutchen — is here.

The fate of the other 13 whose case apparently remains in the Supreme Court is uncertain at this point.  There have been news stories, however, saying that the small Pacific island nation of Palau had reached an agreement with U.S. officials to accept some of the Uighurs.  (See this account in the New York Times and this account  in the Los Angeles Times.)

The Supreme Court is currently scheduled to consider the Uighurs’ case at a private Conference on June 25.  If all are transferred before then, however, the case is likely to be dismissed without a ruling on whether the courts have any authority to order release of Guantanamo prisoners into mainland U.S. to live, even temporarily.  The D.C. Circuit Court ruled that there is no judicial power to do that.

Twice before — once during the Bush Administration, once during the Obama Administration — the government has headed off Supreme Court review of a detainee case by moving the individual out of detention into civilian custody, for criminal prosecution in the regular federal court system on terrorism-related charges.  (The cases were those of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Yemeni national who was living in the U.S. as a pemanent resident alien. Padilla has since been convicted after a trial and Al-Marri has pleaded guilty.)

Update 9 a.m.: Al-Marri’s plea agreement can be downloaded here.

Nearly two months after the Supreme Court took off of its docket a major case on presidential detention power, the individual involved — Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a Qatari and Saudi national — has pleaded guilty to criminal charges in a regular federal court.  But the plea bargain disclosed on Thursday leaves unsettled a number of issues, and those raise the prospect that the case at some point may return to the Court.

In particular, Al-Marri’s lawyers indicated in the plea agreement that they will attempt to get credit for him against his prison term — up to 15 years — for the more than seven years he has been in federal civilian or military custody.  They apparently also will press for even less prison time, with the argument that he was abused and kept in inhumane conditions for much of the time he was being held in a Navy brig in South Carolina as an “enemy combatant.”

The Supreme Court had agreed last December to hear Al-Marri’s challenge to his detention (Al-Marri v. Spagone, 08-368), and was scheduled to hold oral argument on it this week.  However, the Obama Administration decided to move Al-Marri out of military custody, and obained criminal charges against him.  At the Administration’s request, the Court on March 6 ended the case (see this post, including a link to the Court’s order), and allowed Al-Marri’s transfer to civilian custody for trial on two criminal charges.  The Court formally closed tje detention case on April 9, sending the documents back to the Fourth Circuit Court; the Circuit Court’s decision against Al-Marri had been vacated by the Justices.

On Thursday, in U.S. District Court in Peoria, Ill. — the city where Al-Marri had been living and where he was first taken into federal custody in late 2001 — the former detainee pleaded guilty to one of the two counts against him: conspiracy to provide “material support” to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.  (A Justice Department news release on the plea is here, and a statement by Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is here.)

U.S. District Judge Michael M. Mihm has set sentencing for July 30.  The Justice Department said Al-Marri “faces up to 15 years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, a life term of supervised release, and a $100 mandatory special assessment.”  The Justice Department signaled in the plea agreement that it “reserves the right to oppose” any claim that Al-Marri should get less than a 15-year prison term.  And that is where future controversy may center.

Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATED TO 1:40 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Friday wiped out a lower court ruling that gave the President the authority to detain indefinitely as terrorism suspects individuals who are living legally in the United States. The order also approved transfer of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri from military custody to civilian custody for a trial on criminal charges in a regular federal court, presumably in Illinois. The order is available here.

The Court’s action ended the Qatari national’s case – Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368) — that the Court had agreed to hear.  Thus, a hearing set for April 27 will not be held.  The petition challenged the President’s authority to order domestic detentions, arguing that neither the 9/11 Resolution enacted after the 2001 terrorist attacks or the Constitution authorized such actions.

The Fourth Circuit Court, in a splintered decision, upheld that authority under the 2001 Resolution, but did not rule on the government’s alternative claim that the President’s constitutional power as Commander-in-Chief supported the action.  While the Supreme Court’s order Friday does not indicate how the Justices would have ruled had they gone ahead with their review, their order “vacated” the Circuit Court ruling, meaning that it no longer is a binding precedent on the issues it decided.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Obama Administration told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it is not trying to keep on the books a sweeping lower court ruling upholding presidential detention power inside the U.S.  It is willing, it said in a reply brief renewing its plea for dismissal of Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368), to have that decision wiped out.

“The government’s agreement here that vacatur of the decision below would be appropriate conclusively demonstrates that the government is not attempting to preserve its victory while evading review,” the brief said.

Moreover, it added, the decision to shift Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri from military to civilian custody, for trial in civilian court on criminal charges, is the kind of action that is “entitled to a presumption of regularity,” especially since President Obama himself has told the military to release Al-Marri and to no longer treat him as an “enemy combatant.”

The Court plans to consider the government motion to dimiss the case at its private Conference on Friday, according to the Court’s electronic docket.  Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., also has passed on to his colleagues for action a request by the government for permission to transfer Al-Marri out of the U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., where he has been held for more than five years without charges.

That could mean the Court could act as early as Friday afternoon or, if not then, next Monday. The Court agreed in December to rule on Al-Marri’s case, and the government’s brief — if the case is not dismissed — is due March 23.

Read the rest of this entry »

Saying that the Obama Administration is keeping open the option of sending a Qatari national back to a military jail indefinitely, his attorneys urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to go ahead and hear his challenge to his captivity.  In a brief opposing a Justice Department plea to dismiss the pending case of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, his lawyers contended that the issues he raised about presidential detention authority are “as fundamental and important now” as when the Court agreed in December to hear the case.

“Unless the government can give al-Marri the assurance that he no longer faces the risk of renewed military detention under the claimed authority,” his lawyers said, the case is not moot — that is, no longer involves a live controversy.

At the same time, his lawyers told the Court in a letter that they take no position on a government request to approve Al-Marri’s transfer from military to civilian custody, to await trial in civilian court on new criminal charges.

The Court on Dec. 5 agreed to hear the case of Al-Mari v. Spagone (08-368), testing whether the 9/11 Resolution passed by Congress after the 2001 terrorist attacks gives the President the authority to detain indefinitely, without charges, an individual legally in the U.S. and then held captive inside the country. If the Resolution does have that effect, Al-Marri’s attorneys argued, it is unconstitutional. The Court has set the case for oral argument for April 27, but that would not occur if the case is dismissed.

If the Court does decide that the case is “moot,” Al-Marri’s counsel asked the Court in dismissing the case to wipe out the Fourth Circuit Court ruling upholding the claimed detention power.

“The Fourth Circuit’s fractured judgment,” the brief contended, “rests upon splintered opinions that confuse, rather than clarify, the law surrounding the critically important question presented.” And, it went on, dismisal without vacating the lower court ruling “would leave legal residents and American citizens within the country vulnerable to indefinite military detention in the future without the benefit of this Court’s definitive resolution of the matter.”

The Justice Department is expected to file a reply Wednesday, and the Justices probably will consider the issue later this week.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon to end the case of an individual captured and held in the U.S. as a terrorism suspect, but did not tell the Court that it is abandoning the claim that it has power to do so.  Instead, it argued that the planned release of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri from a military jail, for criminal prosecution in civilian court, means there is no longer any live controversy over his detention.

Simultaneously, the Solicitor General’s office asked the Court to approve Al-Marri’s release into civilian custody, even though it argued that the Court’s permission to do that was not necessary.  These developments followed the public release Friday morning of a two-count criminal indictment of Al-Marri (see this post).

Indicating that it probably will act swiftly on the two requests, the Court asked Al-Marri’s lawyers to respond to both by the end of the day on Tuesday, with any government reply due on Wednesday.  That could mean the Justices could respond as soon as it has those filings, or else  consider it in their private Conference next Friday.

The motion to end the case is here, and the application to approve Al-Marri’s transfer (08A755) is here.

The Administration’s motion suggested two alternatives to the Court: dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because the specific legal dispute will end with Al-Marri’s release by the military — a move that apparently would leave the detention power unaltered because it would leave intact a Fourth Circuit Court decision upholding that authority — or vacate the Fourth Circuit’s decision, essentially taking it off the books, and end the case as “moot” or as a matter of “equitable discretion” (a phrase not further explained).

Al-Marri’s lawyers had noted earlier in the day that, despite Al-Marri’s indictment, the Administration had not yet renounced “the asserted authority to imprison legal residents and U.S. citizens without a charge.”  In the government’s new filings in the Court, there was no indication that it would do so.

In response to the filings, Al-Marri’s lead lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union, commented: “The administration has failed to renounce the government’s power to designate legal residents and American citizens as enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely without charge. Its response underscores why the Supreme Court must make clear that the government does not have this power under our laws and Constitution.”

The new document made two points: first, it said that the government had made “a change in policy as to” Al-Marri, and thus there is only a “hypothetical contigency” that he might in the future be detained again by the military, and, second, it said that “different circumstances” would exist in the future and contended that “there is no guarantee that future detention would be implemented in the same manner or based on the same authority.”

The second point did seem to imply that detention policy could change at some point, and that appeared to be related to a statement later in the document saying that there can be no certainty that the issues over detention policy raised in Al-Marri’s case “will arise again in the future,” noting that the President “has ordered a comprehensive review of all military detention policies worldwide.”

The government cautioned the Court against deciding the presidential power questions, calling them “extremely sensitive constitutional issues.”  It added: “Caution is particularly appropriate here because upon [Al-Marri's] release and transfer, there will be no remaining individuals detained as enemy combatants on United States soil.”  Thus, it went on, a ruling in Al-Marri’s case would not provide “guidance to any other” individuals in Al-Marri’s situation.

“Adjudication of the important and sensitive questions surrounding military detention should be addressed only if necessary, in the context of a live case involving concrete circumstances,” the motion concluded.

Read the rest of this entry »

A federal grand jury in Peoria, Ill., has charged a Qatari national held in the U.S. with terrorism crimes, and the Justice Department said Friday it will ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the prisoner’s pending appeal, now set for a hearing April 27.  The two-page indictment, unsealed Friday, can be found here. It makes two charges against Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, held for more than five years in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina. A Justice Department news release is here.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Al-Marri, issued this press release.

In the pending Supreme Court case, Al-Marri challenges the President’s authority to seize and hold without charges an individual lawfully living in the U.S. (Al-Marri v. Spagone, 08-368). Al-Marri is the only individual being held inside the U.S. as an “enemy combatant,” under a designation by former President Bush.

The Department said the Solicitor General’s office would move, probably later Friday, to have Al-Marri’s petition dismissed in the wake of the indictment. But Jonathan Hafetz, Al-Marri’s lead lawyer, said: “Despite this indictment, the Obama administration has yet to renounce the government’s asserted authority to imprison legal residents and U.S. citizens without charge or gtrial. We will continue to pursue Mr. Al-Marri’s case before the Supreme Court to make sure that no American citizen or lawful resident will ever again be subjected to such treatment.”

Andrew Savage, another of Al-Marri’s lawyers, said that “we are pleased that after more than seven years of detention, Mr. Al-Marri will finally have his day in court.  Mr. Al-Marri is reviewing the charges and will respond in court.”

The two-count indictment, returned Thursday and made public Friday, charged Al-Marri with providing “material support” to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network and with a conspiracy to provide such support.  It said specifically that the type of support he is accused of providing was “personnel.” That was not further explained.  If convicted of both charges, the Justice Department said, Al-Marri could face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison on each count.

Shortly after President Obama took office last month, he ordered a review of Al-Marri’s case.  After obtaining the indictment, the President ordered the Pentagon to transfer Al-Marri from the Navy brig in Charleston to the Justice Department, for placement in a civilian prison.  The transfer would take place, the Department said, after the Supreme Court acted on the planned government motion to dismiss.  (The President’s transfer order is here.)

One question raised by Lyle’s post below – noting news reports that the Administration may shortly charge detainee Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri in a civilian court – is whether this move will in fact allow the Administration to avoid taking a position on the merits of al-Marri’s constitutional and other claims in the Supreme Court.  [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting al-Marri].

Presumably, if charges are filed, the Government will move to dismiss the case as moot.  But it also seems apparent (from his lawyers’ press release) that al-Marri will oppose the dismissal, presumably on the ground that there remains a risk that he will be moved back into military custody (as, after all, happened the last time the Government charged him with a crime).  The dissenting votes from the denial of Padilla’s cert. petition may indicate that at least some Justices will think such arguments are serious. 

Of course, if five Justices agree with the Government’s motion, then the case will be dismissed.  But the big question is whether that will happen before the Government is required to file its brief on the merits on March 23.  There are only two conference days after tomorrow before the Government’s brief on the merits is due – March 6, and March 20.  Given the need to give al-Marri time to respond, it seems most likely that the Court would consider any motion to dismiss at the latter conference, giving the Government a few days to file its brief if the motion were denied. 

But there is a real possibility that the Court would not rule on the motion at the conference.  Instead, the Court could hold the motion over to decide along with the merits (if necessary) after oral argument.  That would force the Government to file a brief on the merits, something it presumably very much wants to avoid.

Read the rest of this entry »

The American Civil Liberties Union, citing news stories, reported Thursday that the Justice Department will shortly file terrorism charges and hold a trial in civilian court of a Qatari national, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri — the only detainee taken prisoner in the U.S. and still being held in this country.  The ACLU, which represents Al-Marri, issued a news release, found here.  A Washington Post story on the development is here. Other news organizations have similar accounts.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 5 agreed to hear Al-Marri’s challenge to the President’s authority to detain an individual inside the U.S. (Al-Marri v. Spagone, 08-368).  His lawyers contend that neither federal law nor the Constitution gives the President that authority.  The Court has scheduled oral argument in the case for April 27.  The Justice Department’s brief is due March 23 — a date the Department sought to allow time for officials to review Al-Marri’s case, as President Obama ordered on Jan. 22.

However, if criminal charges are filed, that could lead the Administration to take Al-Marri out of a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., and put him in a civilian jail, and thus perhaps putting an end to his attempt to gain his release through a habeas petition.  The ACLU, in its announcement Thursday, indicated that it would try to persuade the Justices to go ahead and decide the case.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court on Monday released the oral argument calendar for the final series of hearings this Term, in the session beginning Monday, April 20.  Two of the most significant cases of the Term are on the list: Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368), testing the President’s power to order the unlimited detention of an individual taken captive and held inside the U.S. — to be heard on April 27 (see below) – and Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder  (08-322), on the constitutionality of Congress’ 25-year extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, requiring a number of state and local governments to get clearance in Washington before they may change their election laws or procedures – to be heard on the final day of hearings, April 29.

The morning sessions begin at 10 a.m.

Here are the day-to-day hearings, with a summary of the issues at stake:

Mon., April 20:

Iraq v. Beaty (07-1090) and Iraq v. Simon (08-539) — foreign government immunity to lawsuits for actions of the former Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein (cases consolidated for one-hour argument)

Horne v. Flores (08-289) and Speaker of the Arizona House v. Flores (08-294) — state power to control English language instruction (cases consolidated for one-hour argument)

Tues., April 21:

Safford Unified School District v. Redding (08-479) — constitutionality of strip-searching a student at a public school in search of drugs

Eisenstein v. New York City (08-660) — time limit for lawsuits seeking recovery of misspent federal funds under False Claims Act

Wed., April 22:

Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428) and Ricci v. DeStefano (08-328) – city duty to promote white workers who scored highest on firefighter civil service exam (cases consolidated for one-hour argument)

Mon., April 27:

Nijhawan v. Holder (08-495) — challenge to banishment after felony conviction

Bobby v. Bies (08-598) — claim of interference by federal appeals court with state court over mental retardation issue in death penalty case

Afternoon: Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368) — President’s power to order detention of terrorism suspect seized and held inside U.S. VACATED

Tues., April 28:

Forest Grove School District v. T.A. (08-305) — right to private school tuition reimbursement for disabled student who received no prior public benefits

Cuomo v. Clearing House (08-453) — state power to enforce state laws against racial bias in mortgage lending

Wed., April 29:

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder (08-322) — constitutionality of Congress’ 25-year extension of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Awaiting word on President Obama’s position on domestic detention of terrorism suspects, lawyers for the only detainee being held inside the U.S. have gained a wide array of support for his Supreme Court appeal.  A total of 18 amicus briefs have been filed in the case, Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368).   All of the briefs are collected at this site of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Qatari national at the center of the case, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri.

Among the supporting briefs are submissions by former U.S. diplomats, former judges, ex-officials of the Justice Department, experts on counter-terrorism, former national security officials, retired military officers, a broad spectrum of scholars of history and law, and legal advocacy groups.

The government’s brief in the case had been due on Feb. 20, but the Court on Jan. 23 extended the time for filing that document until March 23, at the request of the Obama Administration.  The President, as part of a sweeping new review of detainee policy, has set up a special study group to analyze the Al-Marri case and the fundamental constitutional issue it raises.  The President’s order on Jan. 22 said the study of the case was to “commence immediately.”

It appears that, if the case proceeds before the Court, it would be heard in the argument session that begins on April 20.

UPDATED 3:20 p.m.  Acting Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler on Thursday asked the Supreme Court for a delay until March 23 for the federal government to file its brief on the merits in the Al-Marri case.  This will allow time for the review of the case ordered by the President, Kneedler wrote in this letter.  He added that this schedule would allow Al-Marri’s counsel to file a reply brief in time for oral argument during the week beginning April 27 — the final week for oral argument in the current Term.  The government brief is currently due Feb. 20.

——————-

UPDATED 12:50 p.m.  The President’s order on the review of the Al-Marri case is here.

—————

President Obama on Thursday ordered the Justice Department to make a new review of the detention case now awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court — Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368); the review is to “commence immediately.”  The case involves a Qatari national, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, who was seized inside the U.S. where he was living legally, and has been held in military custody in this country for more than five years.

The President said the review “shall expeditiously determine the disposition options with respect to al-Marri and shall pursue such disposition as is appropriate,” based upon “the principles” Mr. Obama set out in another Executive Order, on the fate of the prisoners now being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  That other Order can be found here.  The Guantanamo Order was also signed Thursday, putting it into effect. It does not apply to Al-Marri, the President noted, bedcause he is not at the prison at Guantanamo.

In one of the Guantanamo Order paragraphs that the President indicated should apply to the review of Al-Marri’s situation, all government agencies are told to supply everything they know about him to the Attorney General for review, and officials are mandated to decide whether Al-Marri is to be transferred, prosecuted, or given some other disposition.  In the other paragraph mentioned, the Secretary of State is told to pursue diplomatic options with other governments regarding Al-Marri’s fate.

The President said the Justice Department will be asking the Supreme Court to delay the case, and it appears that the U.S. Solicitor General is already planning to seek at least a 30-day extension of time to file the government’s brief in the case — a brief that, at present, would be due Feb. 20.  The case had been expected to be scheduled for oral argument sometime in March.

Jonathan Hafetz, the American Civil Liberties Union who is Al-Marri’s lead lawyer, issued this statement Thursday: “We welcome review of al-Marri’s status because any objective review must conclude that his current detention as an enemy combatant is unlawful.  At the government’s request, we had already agreed to a 30-day extension for the government to file its brief in the Supreme Court, but we will vigorously oppose any request that delays resolution of the case beyond the current Supreme Court term ending in June. Mr. Al-Marri has been illegally detained for 5 1/2 years in military confineement. We fully expect his detention to be struck down upon review by the Supreme Court.”

The other Order just signed by the President is sure to have a significant and early impact on other detainees and their court cases.  It sets a one-year deadline for closure of the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, and orders up a new review of each case of the 245 detainees still imprisoned at the Cuba base. (A post that was based on the apparently final draft of the Guanatamo mandate can be read here. A comparison of the draft and the final issued version shows no substantive changes, so the discussion of the draft applies to the Order as issued.)

Lawyers for a Qatari national, held in U.S. military captivity for more than five years as a terrorism suspect, argued on Wednesday that Congress could not — merely by remaining silent – grant the President the authority to order his detention without criminal charges. But, even if Congress had given such authority, it would be unconstitutional, the attorneys argued.

Filing of the new brief, in Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368), a case the Court will hear in March, sets the stage for the new Obama Administration to file its legal views by late February (unless it seeks and obtains a delay of its filing deadline.)  The American Civil Liberties Union, handling the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, has provided a link to download its brief at this site.

The 57-page brief is heavily focused on argument about what Congress did, and intended to do, when it passed the “9/11 Resolution” soon after the terrorist attacks on the U.S.  (the measure is formally known as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”).  Only ten pages of the brief are devoted explicitly to constitutional arguments, disputing Congress’ power to authorize the long-term detention of individuals captured inside the U.S. and disputing the President’s “inherent power” to order such detentions.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Monday, the Court will be closed in observance of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Tuesday, the Court will be closed for Inauguration Day.

On Wednesday,  the Court will release the remaining orders from the Justices’ private conference on Friday, as well as hear argument in:

• Corley v. United States (07-10441), involving the suppression of voluntary confessions.
• Kansas v. Ventris (07-1356), involving prosecutors’ ability to impeach witnesses with statements obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.
• Nken v. Mukasey (08-681), involving the standard reviewing courts should use to stay an alien’s order of removal.

On Friday, the Justices will hold a private conference, orders from which are expected to be released the following Monday.

The petitioner’s merits brief is due Wednesday in al-Marri v. Pucciarelli (08-368). The respondent’s merits brief is due Wednesday in Rivera v. Illinois (07-9995), Thursday in  Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al. (07-1372), and Friday in Flores-Figueroa v. United States (08-108) and Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. Carlisle, et al. (08-146). (Links above direct to case pages on SCOTUSwiki.)