Monthly Archives: June 2006

There’s lots of great blogging about Hamdan around the blogosphere. I was particularly impressed by the interesting thoughts at Opinio Juris and Balkinization.

My prior posts on Hamdan have taken a political science perspective on the case. But what about Hamdan from a legal perspective?  Which side had the more persuasive legal arguments? Here is the super-simplified version of the two key arguments.  … Continue reading →

Georgetown Law has started a faculty blog.  Here is the initial list of contributors: * Neal Katyal * Richard Lazarus * Mike Seidman * Emma Coleman Jordan * Rebecca Tushnet * Mark Tushnet Definitely worth checking out.

This spring, a big question in the blogosphere was the legality of the NSA domestic surveillance program, which ended up turning in large part on whether the post-9/11 Authorization to Use Military Force implicitly overrode the prohibition on warrantless monitoring … Continue reading →

Following the Supreme Court is a lot like following professional sports. Summer is the off-season, the season kicks off on the first Monday in October, and the World Series is the string of cases handed down in the last week … Continue reading →

Just in time for today’s Hamdan decision, the New Yorker has put Jane Mayer’s article on David Addington online. Addington is the chief architect of the Administration’s legal strategy in the GWOT, and the piece talks about Addington and how … Continue reading →

Everyone wants to know what difference Hamdan will make, so I wanted to offer some very preliminary thoughts on this very complex question.   My general take, at least based on a preliminary read of the opinions and some insta-reaction in the … Continue reading →

Amidst all the interest in Hamdan, criminal law types out there won’t want to miss today’s opinions in Clark v. Arizona, on the constitutional requirements of the insanity defense.  The vote was 6-3, with Justice Souter writing the majority opinion … Continue reading →

If you plan on working your way through the 177 pages of Hamdan opinions today, here’s what you have in front of you: Justice Stevens wrote the main opinion — 73 pages long — which is a 5-Justice majority opinion … Continue reading →

It’s interesting to read Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld for signs of how Justice Kennedy would rule on the scope of the Commander-in-Chief power issues that may come come before the Court in the next few years. Much … Continue reading →

You’re probably doing this here, too. UPDATE: As of 10:10, here’s what Lyle has for us: The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, … Continue reading →

Via Howard, I see that the President has nominated four pretty accomplished individuals to the federal appellate bench. Criminal law scholar and Columbia lawprof Debra Livingston has been nominated to the Second Circuit; District Court Judge Kent Jordan (who I … Continue reading →

In a particularly interesting case at the intersection of criminal law and international law, the Supreme Court decided today that violations of a part of the Vienna Convention do not result in suppression of evidence. The majority opinion by Chief … Continue reading →

Watching the webcast of the Judiciary Committee hearing on Presidential signing statements brings up a broader point about the Bush Administration’s approach to Article II powers. It seems to me that the Bush Administration’s approach to Article II powers has … Continue reading →

Tomorrow, June 27th, at 10 am, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding hearings on the use of Presidential signing statements. The group that is testifying is really top-notch, so this will be a set of hearings well worth watching. … Continue reading →

Dan Filler has some very good commentary on the opinions in Kansas v. Marsh over at Concurring Opinions.

Happy Birthday to Judge Wesley Brown, who turned 99 last week.   Hat tip: Confirm Them.

The Supreme Court’s sharp internal divisions about capital punishment were on unusually open display in today’s opinion in Kansas v. Marsh. Of particular interest, Justice Souter wrote a dissent joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens that reveals the animating thinking … Continue reading →

Over at SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston has the early scoop on the Supreme Court decisions handed down this morning.

In the Los Angeles Times, criminologist Samuel Walker writes that he felt “horror” when his book was cited by Justice Scalia in Hudson v. Michigan: . . . Justice Antonin Scalia cited me to support a terrible decision, holding that … Continue reading →