UPDATE: COURT HAS CHANGED ITS MIND. SEE NEW POST.
In a 6-3 vote, the Supremes refused to hear the challenges of several Guantanamo Bay detainees to their continued detention. In a somewhat restrained statement, Stevens and Kennedy acknowledged the "obvious importance of the issues raised," but found that the petitioners must exhaust their remedies before the Court would be willing to hear the case, or at least experience or assert some additional delay or "some other ongoing injury"(whatever that means). The Court emphasized that the denial of cert was not a judgment on the merits, which I'm sure is cold comfort to the detainees.
Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg dissent in no uncertain terms. As Breyer puts it,
...[P]etitioners have been held for more than five years. They have not obtained judicial review of their habeas claims. If petitioners are right about the law, immediate review may avoid an additional year or more of imprisonment. If they are wrong,our review is nevertheless appropriate to help establish the boundaries of the constitutional provision for the writ of habeas corpus.I'd have to give it to the dissenters as for persuasiveness. Unfortunately for the detainees, it was not a writing contest.
It is unreasonable to suggest that the D. C. Circuit in future proceedings under the DTA will provide review that affords petitioners the rights that the Circuit has already concluded they do not have.
Denial of Cert