Constitutional Law

High Court Dismisses Al-Marri Military Imprisonment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today dismissed a case involving a challenge to the Bush administration's claim that it had the constitutional power to imprison an alleged al Qaeda operative indefinitely without charges.

For more than five years, Ali al-Marri has been held at a military prison in South Carolina as a so-called enemy combatant with no charges lodged against him. Al-Marri was studying at Bradley University in Illinois when he was detained by the military in 2001 and accused of being part of a Qaeda sleeper cell. Al-Marri sued the administration challenging its claim to have the power to hold him indefinitely.

The Obama administration, however, recently informed the Supreme Court that al-Marri would be removed from the military prison and transferred to civilian custody to face charges in a criminal court. The administration subsequently asked the justices to dismiss as moot the Al-Marri v. Spagone case. After a private conference meeting this morning, the high court, without comment, dismissed a decision from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held the president had the legal ability to imprison al-Marri indefinitely without charge. The high court also affirmed al-Marri's transfer from military to civilian custody.

The high court had set argument in the case for April 27, and al-Marri's attorneys had urged the justices to keep the case alive. 'Although Mr. al-Marri's indictment represents an important step towards restoring the rule of law, his case before the Supreme Court is not moot,' said Jonathan Hafetz, an ACLU staff attorney and lead counsel for al-Marri. 'The government has still not renounced the legal authority that led to Mr. al-Marri's detention in military custody for more than six years without charge or trial. The Court should make clear that there is no legal authority for the president to deprive individuals living in the United States of their most basic constitutional rights by declaring them ‘enemy combatants.''

Hafez said today, 'While we would have preferred a Supreme Court ruling that U.S. citizens and lawful residents detained in the U.S. cannot be held in military custody as ‘enemy combatants' without charges or trial, the Supreme Court nonetheless took an important step today by vacating a lower court decision that had upheld the Bush administration's authority to designate al-Marri as an ‘enemy combatant.''

The New York Times, in a March 6 editorial, also urged the high court to the keep the case alive, noting that the Obama administration could decide to hold al-Marri as an enemy combatant again, if the trial does not produce a criminal conviction. 'A Supreme Court showdown over the reprehensible enemy combatant policy is overdue,' the newspaper's editorial board said. 'Three years ago, the court avoided ruling on the matter. It declined the case of another enemy combatant, Jose Padilla, when the government made a sudden turnaround and charged him in civilian court to dodge Supreme Court review.'

Full post as published by ACS Blog on March 06, 2009 (boomark / email).