Thanks to How Appealing for posting the petition in No. 05-533, Padilla v. Hanft. I posted some preliminary thoughts on the oddities of the court of appeals’ decision here and here.
Update: The case has been docketed as 05-533.
Here are the questions the petition presents:
“1. Does the President have the power to seize American citizens in civilian settings on American soil and subject them to indefinite military detention without criminal charge or trial?
“2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that Petitioner’s continued detention as an ‘enemy combatant’ was a ‘necessary and appropriate’ use of force under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (‘AUMF’), Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)?”
Padilla’s lawyers passed up a chance to ask the Fourth Circuit for en banc review, got that Court to issue its mandate early, and filed their petition in the Supreme Court more than a month before a final deadline. This was part of an obvious strategy to get the case acted upon for possible review in the Court’s current Term. The government response is due Nov. 28. If usual practices are followed, the Court could grant or deny the case in January; a grant would put the case on the docket for decision this Term.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY