The Supreme Court delivered its final decisions on Thursday in the cases of Medellin v. Texas and Boumediene v. Bush. Justice Ginsberg delivered the decision in Medellin and Justice Kennedy attempted to explain the chaos surrounding Boumediene, which was essentially a victory for the Bush Administration.

Medellin v. Texas was a 6-3 victory for the petitioner. In the opinion, “the court refutes the notion that the President has the authority to order the state courts to follow the ICJ’s Avena ruling.” Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Thomas, Souter and Scalia joined Ginsberg in the opinion. Justice Roberts dissented and Justice Alito joined the dissent. Justice Souter joined the dissent in part.

“Medellin is entitled to a remedy,” Ginsberg said. “The decision will be sent back to the state court of Texas to decide what that remedy will be.”

The justices acknowledged that both of the cases were very difficult to decide.

“I agreed with everything the majority said, except for their overall opinion,” Justice Souter said of Medellin v. Texas.

In Boumediene v. Bush, the justices were divided 4-1-4. At this time, SUNN has not received any documents related to the decision in Boumediene v. Bush.

The justices decided that the US does have jurisdiction at Guantanamo Bay, but they will not hear all habeas cases.

“We are not going to totally strike down the MCA,” Kennedy said.

The detainment of Boumediene with declared constitutional.

As SUNN receives more documents, they will be posted

Ben and I woudl like to thank you for listening all semester and for those that appeared on our show.  Have a safe and happy holidays.

Zack Glick

Justice Ginsburg’s decision can be downloaded here

•  The Planed Parenthood v. Rounds decision by Justice Breyer can be downloaded here.
•  The Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections by Justice Kennedy can be downloaded here

Stay tuned to our final episode of The 316 this weekend to wrap up your coverage of this Supreme Court Term.

The Supreme Court delivered two decisions from the bench today.

They read opinions in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds. Both were 5-4 decisions.

In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the justices decided in favor of the petitioner, represented by Brett Pugach, and struck down a voter identification law in Indiana. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justice Breyer, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Souter.

The statute placed an undue burden on voters, Justice Kennedy said.

In dissent, Justice Alito said that he voted in favor of the state’s rights.

In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, Justice Breyer wrote the opinion and was joined by Justice Kennedy, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Souter. The decision was in favor of the respondent, represented by Marlene Goldenberg, and declared § 7 of South Dakota House 1166 as unconstitutional. Thus, the court upheld the judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Compelled speech is prohibited under the first amendment,” Breyer said.

Breyer said that the statement that the fetus is a whole and separate being is ideological and declared the entirety of the South Dakota statue to be unconstitutional.

In dissent, Scalia said that the decision ignored precedent and that the decision in Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that the court should make all efforts to correct it.

The remaining decisions, Boumediene v. Bush and Medellin v. Texas, will be delivered from the bench Thursday.

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.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Medellin v. Texas.   It was the second to last case that the court will hear before the term ends and decisions are handed down.

The case concerns the constitutionality of President Bush’s order to Texas courts to grant relief in a death penalty case involving the Vienna Convention on Consular relations.

The justices asked many questions of both the petitioner and the respondent.

 ”There were a few difficult questions, specifically from Justice Ginsburg and Justice Souter, but overall I felt as though I was able to gain at least some support for my argument from many of the justices,” said respondent Josh Ehrenpfort, who is representing Jose Ernesto Medellin.  “I don’t think I could have done much more in the way of preparation, but I still felt like I got tripped up a couple of times.”

 Petitioner Scott Covit, represented the state of Texas, agreed that arguments went well.

 ”Fortunately, I was able to get in all of the main points that I was striving to include,” Covit said.   “With any luck the Supreme Court would have absorbed those main points as I tried to strenuously focus on them and that that would help for my case’s desired outcome.”

The Office of the Solicitor General, represented by Chris Curran, participated in this case and argued on behalf of the petitioner for approximately five minutes, and the petitioner reserved five minutes of his time after the court heard from the respondent.

Curran argued that the president has the power to go over the heads of the judiciary

“That is a grounded principle that we live by,” Curran said.

However, he said that the president is giving the judiciary a chance to effectively work by not using a presidential pardon.

“We believe that it is considerably paramount that the Supreme Court rules in our favor because of two reasons,” said Covit.  “The first is that in the interest of foreign relations, the United States government should not fall back on treaties that are signed and binding. The second is that this case would more finely establish jurisdictional lines in the area of foreign powers in the branches of the Courts, Congress, the Executive, and the State Governments and authorities.”

Ehrenport argued that the president is trying to influence the judicial process.

“The strongest point in my argument is that this Court has constantly affirmed the idea that the president is prohibited from making the laws,” Ehrenpfort said. “I think Texas has shown that the President did in fact try to unilaterally make policy here, thereby making his actions unconstitutional.”

“It is important for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Texas because of the effect this could on future domestic affairs,” Ehrenpfort said. “Ruling in favor of the petitioner would grant the president a dangerous amount of unilateral authority.  The Court must rule in favor of Texas so as to check this unconstitutional act by the President, and to prevent any more in the future.”

NOTE: Arguments in this case were heard by the real Supreme Court on October 10.