No. 05-533 In The Supreme Court of the United States ____________________ JOSE PADILLA, Petitioner, - versus - C.T. HANFT, COMMANDER, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, CHARLESTON CONSOLIDATED NAVAL BRIG, Respondent. ____________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit ____________________ BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS as AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER ____________________ DONALD G. REHKOPF, JR. Counsel of Record BRENNA & BRENNA, PLLC 31 East Main Street, Suite 2000 Rochester, New York 14614 (585) 454-2000 December 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................... ii INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE ................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2 ARGUMENT ................................... 5 I. THIS CASE IS NOT MOOT AS A CONTINUING CONTROVERSY STILL EXISTS AND RELIEF FOR PETITIONER MAY BE EFFECTUATED. 5 A. The Real Party In Interest. 5 B. There is a Continuing Controversy. 5 II. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RESOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. 8 A. Further Litigation Is Unlikely to Assist in Refining the Core Issues and Arguments Herein. 8 B. The Court Should Resolve the Issue of Whether or Not the Term “Enemy Combatant” Has Any Jurisprudential Significance. 11 C. The Government’s Interpretation of the AUMF Results in an Unconstitutional “Bill of Attainder.” 14 CONCLUSION ................................. 17 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Al-Marri v. Hanft, Civ. Action No. 2:04-2257-HFF-RSC (D.SC. 2004) ................................... 2, 6, 8, 16 Beckwith v. Bean, 98 U.S. 266 (1878) . 17, 18 Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) .............................................. 6, 7 Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 716 (2005) 12, 14 Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867) . 14 Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946) . 15 Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807) .................. 9 Ex Parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) ................. 13 Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) . 9, 15, 19 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) ................ 9, 12 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004) 11 In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946) .................. 12 Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 (1992) . 6 Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804) .................. 9 Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) . 7 ii NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) . 13 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) .................... 9 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). 2 Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935). ................................................ 2 Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998). 5, 6 Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974). 14 Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955)................... 9 Troy v. Cochran, __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 2108 (2005) . 8 United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965). 16 United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) . 16 United States v. Abu Ali (Cr. No. 05-53)(E.D. VA. 2005) . 2 United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) . 16 United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Corporation, 393 U.S. 199 (1968).................... 7 United States v. Lindh, 212 F.Supp.2d 541, 558 (E.D. VA. 2002). ..................................... 2, 7, 16 United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950) . 20 Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) ........................................... 5, 9, 15 iii CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Article I, § 8 ................................... 4, 12 Article I, § 9, clause 3, U.S. Constitution . 4, 14 Article III, § 2, U.S. Constitution . 3, 5 STATUTES 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(a)(6)............................ 16 10 U.S.C. § 375 .................................. 9 10 U.S.C. § 809(d) .............................. 4, 9 10 U.S.C. § 896 .................................. 5 10 U.S.C. § 951(a) ........................... 4, 9, 10 10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946, Uniform Code of Military Justice .. 4 18 U.S.C. § 1385, Posse Comitatus Act ............ 4, 8, 9 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), Non-Detention Act ........ 4, 8, 9, 17 50 U.S.C. § 21................................... 13 50 U.S.C. § 23, The Enemy Alien Act ................ 12 82 Stat. 287 (1968)............................... 10 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, P.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September 18, 2001) . passim iv OTHER AUTHORITIES 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilians, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 (1950) . 13 1949 Geneva Conventions ......................... 11 33 Opn. Atty. Gen. 562 (1923) . 8 Appleman, Military Trials and International Crimes (1954). ............................................... 13 Army Regulation 190-8, Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees, (1 October 1997). ......................................... 14 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 132 (1765) ........................................................ 10 Comment, An Open Debate on United States Citizens Designated as Enemy Combatants: Where Do We Go From Here? 62 Md. L. Rev. 975 (2003) . 11 DoD Directive, 2310.01, DoD Program for Enemy Prisoners of War (EPOW) and Other Detainees, (August 18, 1994) . 14 Executive Order 13365 (December 3, 2004) . 3 Fairman, The Law of Martial Rule and the National Emergency, 55 Harv. L. Rev. 1253 (1942) . 11 The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke (Sheppard, ed., 2003) “Institutes of the Lawes of England, Second Part” 864 (1642)........................... 20 v Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (as amended through 31 August 2005) . 13 Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2005 ed) . 3 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, § 1338......................................... 17 Watkins, Warriors Without Rights? Combatants, Unprivileged Belligerents, and the Struggle Over Legitimacy,” Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, “Occasional Paper” (Winter 2005, No. 2) . 13 vi INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE1 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [“NACDL”] is a non-profit corporation with a subscribed membership of over 13,000 members, including military defense counsel, public defenders, private practitioners and law professors, and an additional 35,000 state, local and international affiliate members. The American Bar Association recognizes the NACDL as one of its affiliate organizations and awards it full representation in its House of Delegates. The NACDL was founded in 1958 to promote study and research in the field of criminal law; to disseminate and advance knowledge of the law in the area of criminal practice; and to encourage the integrity, independence and expertise of defense lawyers in criminal cases, both civilian and military. Among the NACDL's objectives are ensuring justice and due process for persons accused of crime, promoting the proper and fair administration of criminal justice (to include military justice) and preserving, protecting and defending the adversary system and the U.S. Constitution. The NACDL’s interest in this case is two-fold.2 First, the Government’s expansive interpretation of the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF]3 as the basis for the three and one-half year detention of Mr. Padilla turns the AUMF into an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. Second, while NACDL members have represented 1No counsel for a party authored this Brief in whole or in part. No person, entity or organization other than the Amicus Curiae made a monetary contribution to the preparation and submission of this Brief or to counsel. 2Counsel for the Parties have consented to Amicus Curiae filing this Brief and such have been filed with the Court. 3Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). 1 clients who have been threatened with being or who have been designated as an “enemy combatant,” after criminal charges were brought,4 our interests also include protecting the rights of all citizens from arbitrary confinement. Threatening a citizen - ethical considerations aside - with indefinite military detention is an anathema to our core concepts of liberty and due process. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the Constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary.5 There are profound and fundamental constitutional issues that permeate this case, which command resolution by this Court. Two Circuit Courts of Appeal have split on the authority of the President to detain Mr. Padilla, his right to habeas corpus relief and the applicability of various laws during Padilla’s three and one-half year odyssey through the federal court system, to include this Court. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 4E.g., Al-Marri v. Hanft, Civ. Action No. 2:04-2257-HFF-RSC (D.SC. 2004), habeas corpus (pending); United States v. Goba, et al [WD, NY]: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/03/buffalo.six/ [last visited: 11/21/05]; United States v. Ahmed Abu Ali (Cr. No. 05-53)(E.D. VA. 2005), http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149126,00.html [11/21/05], and United States v. Lindh, 212 F.Supp.2d 541, 558 (E.D. VA. 2002). 5Schecter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 528-29 (1935). 2 U.S. 426 (2004). Not