{"id":1076,"date":"2011-11-23T12:08:25","date_gmt":"2011-11-23T17:08:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www3.law.harvard.edu\/journals\/hlpr\/?p=1076"},"modified":"2015-10-02T15:25:45","modified_gmt":"2015-10-02T15:25:45","slug":"dc-circuit-handicaps-guantanamo-habeas-petitions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/2011\/11\/23\/dc-circuit-handicaps-guantanamo-habeas-petitions\/","title":{"rendered":"DC Circuit Handicaps Guantanamo Habeas Petitions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em><span style=\"color: #888888\">Billy Corriher\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p>In the midst of Congress\u2019 continuing debate over Guantanamo detainees, the DC Circuit issued a sharply divided\u00a0<a style=\"color: #1f2d61\" title=\"Latif v. Obama, No. 10-5319 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 14, 2011).  \" href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20120127122510\/http:\/\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\/internet\/opinions.nsf\/403D8EE060E5265885257943006E8F3B\/$file\/10-5319.pdf\">ruling<\/a>\u00a0in which it denied one detainee a writ of Habeas Corpus. In\u00a0<em>Latif v. Obama<\/em>, the majority overturned the district court\u2019s decision and held that the district court should have shown greater deference to the government\u2019s evidence. The court has been criticized for substituting its judgments on the weight and credibility of the evidence for the trial court\u2019s findings.<\/p>\n<p>The DC Circuit said the lower court should have given an intelligence report proffered by the government a \u201cpresumption of regularity.\u201d The court had previously applied this presumption to routine government documents.\u00a0 The court said \u201cit presumes the government official accurately identified the source and accurately summarized his statement, but it implies nothing about the truth of the underlying non-government source\u2019s statement.\u201d The dissenting judge criticized the majority for differing from recent cases in which the court assessed government reports for accuracy or reliability, rather than starting its analysis from a rebuttable presumption of accuracy.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The most controversial aspect of\u00a0<em>Latif<\/em>\u00a0may be the court\u2019s holding that this presumption was overcome.\u00a0 The dissent stated, \u201cNot content with moving the goal posts, the court calls the game in the government\u2019s favor.\u201d The dissent suggests that the majority eschewed the \u201cclearly erroneous\u201d standard of review for a\u00a0<a style=\"color: #1f2d61\" title=\"Latif v. Obama, No. 04-1254 (D.D.C. July 21, 2010).\" href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20120127122510\/https:\/\/ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov\/cgi-bin\/show_public_doc?2004cv1254-907\">trial court\u2019s determinations<\/a>\u00a0on factual issues.\u00a0\u00a0 The dissent said, \u201cIf we take seriously the notion that district courts are better at finding facts and determining credibility, then we should be all the more eager to defer to their expertise when the stakes are high and when the case . . . rests entirely on credibility and how one interprets the facts.\u201d \u00a0Though it ostensibly ruled on the evidentiary issue, the majority\u2019s opinion is almost entirely devoted to detailing it\u2019s disagreement with the trial court\u2019s weighing of the facts.<\/p>\n<p>Both the majority and dissent acknowledge that the Supreme Court\u2019s Guantanamo cases permit lower courts to create some rebuttable presumptions in these cases, but it is not clear how courts should accommodate the practical problems with obtaining evidence in these cases.\u00a0 Referring to\u00a0<em><a style=\"color: #1f2d61\" title=\"Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).\" href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20120127122510\/http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/07pdf\/06-1195.pdf\">Boumediene<\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>the majority said the decision\u2019s \u201cairy suppositions have caused great difficulty for the Executive and the courts.\u201d\u00a0 The majority continues, \u201c<em>Boumediene<\/em>\u00a0fundamentally altered the calculus of war, guaranteeing that the benefit of intelligence that might be gained-even from high-value detainees-is outweighed by the systemic cost of defending detention decisions.\u201d\u00a0 The dissent suggests that the majority eviscerates\u00a0<em>Boumediene<\/em>\u2018s requirement that habeas review be \u201cmeaningful.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Regardless of whether\u00a0<em>Latif<\/em>\u00a0is true to Supreme Court precedent, it is clear that after years of trying to clear up the legal confusion at Guantanamo Bay, much remains murky.\u00a0 The majority suggests that the number of Guantanamo cases will decline because President Obama is not sending any more detainees there, but Congress is\u00a0<a style=\"color: #1f2d61\" title=\"Associated Press, White House threatens veto over detainee policy in defense bill, Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2011.\" href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20120127122510\/http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/congress\/senate-begins-work-on-sweeping-defense-bill-fight-looms-over-terror-suspects\/2011\/11\/17\/gIQAFptmUN_story.html\">considering\u00a0<\/a>measures to keep terrorism suspects at Guantanamo and away from ordinary federal courts.\u00a0 Given this uncertainty, let\u2019s hope the Supreme Court grants cert in\u00a0<em>Latif<\/em>\u00a0to decide whether the appellate court afforded enough deference to the trial court\u2019s weighing of the evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Billy Corriher\u00a0 In the midst of Congress\u2019 continuing debate over Guantanamo detainees, the DC Circuit issued a sharply divided\u00a0ruling\u00a0in which [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZQka-hm","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1076\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/lpr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}