Court turns down Hamdan appeal, will hear Medellin
on Apr 30, 2007 at 12:15 pm
UPDATED 11:36 a.m.
The Supreme Court on Monday denied review of the latest Guantanamo Bay appeal, involving two prisoners who face war crimes trials before “military commissions.” Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter voted to hear the joint appeal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Omar Ahmed Khadr, but it takes the votes of four to grant review. The case was Hamdan v. Gates/Khadr v. Bush (06-1169).
The Court’s action came in a two-sentence order, with no opinion. The three Justices who wanted to hear the case were the same three who voted on April 2 to hear two packets of detainee cases involving individuals who do not face criminal charges — Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196). The denial of review in those cases, in contrast to Monday’s action, brought an opinion by two Justices (John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy) suggesting that the Court wanted the detainees to try first to get some legal relief in the D.C. Circuit Court. Although nothing was written on Monday, that same approach may have been at work again. It seems likely that Justice Stevens, too, would have voted to hear the Hamdan/Khadr petition, had he had some confidence that, on the merits, Justice Kennedy would be in favor of some relief for the detainees as he was last Term when Hamdan’s case first came to the Court.
Hamdan’s part of the new case was an attempt to bypass the Circuit Court, to get direct Supreme Court review of a District Court ruling against him. Khadr’s part of the case was an attempt to get the Court to review the same Circuit Court ruling that the Justices had denied early in the month in the other cases. Both sought to challenge the constitutionality of Congress’ move last year to cut off all habeas challenges by war-on-terrorism captives.
The Justices granted review Monday in only one case — the appeal by Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin, now on death row in Texas. His appeal raises a major question about presidential power to direct state courts to obey a World Court ruling on the rights of foreign nationals arrested and prosecuted in the U.S. Medellin’s appeal on the question of presidential authority is supported by the Bush Administration. The case is Medellin v. Texas (06-984).
The Court took no action Monday on the case of Doe v. Kamehameha Schools (06-1202), a significant test case on whether private schools violate federal law by using race preferences in admitting students as a way to remedy imbalances in educational performance. The Court has examined that case at three separate Conferences without acting. Presumably, it will be up for discussion again in May.
Among a number of test cases that the Court declined on Monday to hear was a dispute between a same-sex couple who joined in a civil union but have since split up over rights of visitation to their daughter — a controversy that has engaged state courts in both Vermont and Virginia. The appeal by the biological mother of the child came before proceedings had been completed in either state’s courts. The case is Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (06-1110). Advocacy groups that oppose same-sex marriage or civil unions had sought to turn the appeal into a test of a state’s authority to refuse under the federal Defense of Marriage Act to respect any parental rights recognized for a same-sex partner in another state.
Here were the issues denied review in other significant cases:
** Would the Court clarify the constitutional test for judging a state legislature’s move to undo labor union contracts entered by cities or other political subdivisions of the state in order to ease budget pressures on city government. (Buffalo Teachers Federation et al. v. Tobe, et al. (06-1168).
** It is unconstitutional for a city government to use its power to condemn private property for public use, if that alters the terms of contracts private firms entered so as to aid a private developer in pursuing another private project. The case was an attempt to get the Court to clarify further its major ruling on the “public use” issue in eminent domain, Kelo v. New London in 2005. The new case was Kaufmann’s, et al., v. Syracuse (06-1159).
** Did the federal government have the authority to adopt a new rule exempting a wide variety of changes in power plant and other factories’ equipment from pre-installation air pollution review. The D.C. Circuit Court struck down a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency rule allowing such exemptions. Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration that led to denial of review of EPA v. New York (06-736) and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. New York (06-750).
** Did the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have any authority to set rates on purchases of energy that may intrude on state regulation of retail electricity rates. The D.C. Circuit upheld a formula used by the Commission for power purchases by electric generating firms when they are using the electricity to power their own stations. (Niagara Mohawk v. FERC, 06-1010, and New York v. FERC, 06-1011).
** If a state is sued in its own courts, and the state then transfers the case to federal court for trial, can the state then claim 11th Amendment immunity to the lawsuit. The 5th Circuit Court said no, but there is a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue. The denied case was Texas v. Meyers (06-462).
