Last Case Heard by Supreme Court

By Lottie Watts

The Supreme Court heard its last case of the term Thursday, November 15, 2007.

The case of Boumediene v. Bush, which deals with the constitutionality of military tribunals, was the final case heard this term.

William Denis represented the petitioner, Lakhdar Boumediene, and the office of the Solicitor General represented President Bush.

Sarah Brigham, representing the World Organization for Human Rights, argued for a few minutes on behalf of the petitioner.

This case was the second that the office of the Solicitor General participated in. Solicitor General Chris Curran [Paul Clement] and Deputy Solicitor General Anthony Marini split their half hour and both argued during the case.

“The justices were a little jumpy at us, which I think is a remnant from Medellin,” Curran said.

The justices kept repeating the question of who owns Guantanamo Bay, Marini said.

“We proved in a lot of ways that Cuba has total sovereignty,” Marini said. “That is key to our argument.”

“I made the point that it’s not Guantanamo theme park, it’s Guantanamo Naval Base,” Curran said. “There is a certain amount of military presence required.”

The respondents said that their arguments are grounded in the briefs and in precedent.

They also said that they were able to include most of what they wanted to in arguments, with a couple of exceptions.

“We relied on a case called Johnson v. Eisentrager,” said Curran, which is mentioned in the respondents brief on the merits.

Johnson v. Eisentrager set the precedent of presence and property, Curran said. He also noted that the Solicitor General’s arguments would have made more sense if he could have explained during oral arguments how those precedents relate to this case.

The Solicitor General’s office was also unable to bring in another point that they wanted to make.

“The Geneva Convention was a big thing that we just snuck in at the end,” Curran said.

“Section 7 is unambiguous about whether states or people can invoke the Geneva Convention for habeas corpus,” Curran said. “It completely bans it. It says right in the Military Commissions Act that no one can invoke the Geneva Convention.”

Time ran out before they could include that point in his argument.

The petitioner noted that he was able to include all of the points that he wanted to.

“The most important point that I made was establishing beyond a doubt that the courts had jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees habeas claim,” Dennis said.

“Almost the entirety of my opponent’s argument relied on excluding the courts jurisdiction,” Dennis said. “By proving that the courts do have jurisdiction, I feel that my opponent’s arguments were effectively nullified.”

The office of the Solicitor General still holds its position.

“Justice Alito pointed out at the end that other countries do not provide habeas corpus to non-citizens who are deemed a threat to their nation,” Marini said.

“The purpose of detaining enemy combatants is not to keep them forever,” Curran said. “It is to prevent them from contacting the enemy and getting back on the battlefield.”

Dennis said that for the justices to uphold the constitution, they need to decide in his favor.

“We have a system designed with checks and balances for a reason,” Dennis said. “It is time that the court checks the power of the president and restores it to its proper balance.”