Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Supreme Court sends Uighur case back to lower court

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to reconsider the case of five Chinese Muslim Uighurs detained at Guantanamo Bay. The court originally granted certiorari in Kiyemba v. Obama to determine whether it is within the power of the judicial branch to order the release of detainees into the US. The court ordered the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the fact that each of the remaining Uighurs has received an offer of resettlement by another country. In a brief order, the court wrote:This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so. Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.The order comes after the court asked the Obama administration and lawyers for the Uighurs to submit supplemental briefs explaining how the resettlement offers would affect the case.Also Monday, the court granted certiorari in Michigan v. Bryant, in which the court will decide whether preliminary inquiries of a wounded citizen concerning the perpetrator and circumstances of the shooting are non-testimonial, rendering them admissible in court. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the "primary purpose of the interrogation to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution," concluding that the statements constituted inadmissible testimonial hearsay.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on March 01, 2010 (boomark / email).