Armed Conflict
Courts & Litigation
Criminal Justice & the Rule of Law
Foreign Relations & International Law
Lawfare News
Terrorism & Extremism
Me on the D.C. Circuit's Post-<i>Boumediene</i> Jurisprudence
Whatever else one might say about the D.C. Circuit's jurisprudence in the Guantanamo litigation, it's certainly been a jobs program...
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Whatever else one might say about the D.C. Circuit's jurisprudence in the Guantanamo litigation, it's certainly been a jobs program... To that end, I thought I'd post the (just-published) final version of an essay of mine in the Seton Hall Law Review that attempts objectively to evaluate the charge that the Court of Appeals has been unfaithful to the Supreme Court's precedents in this area.
Although the essay went to print before the opinions in Latif were released (and thoroughly analyzed here and elsewhere), my hope is that it's an otherwise comprehensive view of the field, and that it helps to crystallize the small (but not empty) set of cases in which I think the charge is fair, as well as the larger set of decisions in which reasonable people may disagree about the results, but fealty to precedent is not a shortcoming.
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. A 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, Steve clerked for Judge Marsha Berzon on the Ninth Circuit and Judge Rosemary Barkett on the Eleventh Circuit. In addition to serving as a senior editor of the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Steve is also the co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading National Security Law and Counterterrorism Law casebooks.
