“Justice John Paul Stevens played a pivotal role in determining the scope of executive-branch power in a post-9/11 world,” observed the Congressional Research Service in one of a series of new reports reviewing the legacy and impact of Justice Stevens, who is set to retire from the Supreme Court next month.
“Justice Stevens authored majority opinions in two leading cases, Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the Court allowed detainees’ habeas petitions to proceed and invalidated the early incarnation of military commissions, thereby rejecting the broader views of executive power articulated shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In the cases, his view prevailed over strongly articulated dissenting opinions authored by Justice Scalia and other justices,” the CRS noted.
“Justice Stevens has been instrumental in developing post-9/11 jurisprudence regarding the limits of executive power during — and following — armed conflicts. Prior to 9/11, the Supreme Court had rarely considered questions regarding potential limits on the President’s Commander in Chief power. The wartime detention cases provide key insights into the Court’s views on the reach of executive authority, as well as on other separation-of-power concerns, including Congress’s role.”
However, a portion of this legacy on detainees’ rights may already be subject to limitation or erosion. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that detainees held abroad by the U.S. military in Afghanistan — unlike those in Guantanamo — could not invoke habeas corpus to appear before a judge.
See “The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Leading Opinions on Wartime Detentions” (pdf), May 13, 2010.
The companion reports from CRS are these (all pdf):
“The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Federalism Issues,” May 19, 2010.
“The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on Intellectual Property Law,” May 14, 2010.
Congress has forbidden CRS to make these and other publications directly available to the public online. Copies were obtained by Secrecy News.
Update: One more:
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: The Chevron Doctrine, May 26, 2010.
Update: And another:
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury’s Role in Criminal Sentencing, June 7, 2010.
While it seems that the current political climate may not incentivize the use of evidence-based data sources for decision making, those of us who are passionate about ensuring results for the American people will continue to firmly stand on the belief that learning agendas are a crucial component to successfully navigate a changing future.
In recent months, we’ve seen much of these decades’ worth of progress erased. Contracts for evaluations of government programs were canceled, FFRDCs have been forced to lay off staff, and federal advisory committees have been disbanded.
This report outlines a framework relying on “Cooperative Technical Means” for effective arms control verification based on remote sensing, avoiding on-site inspections but maintaining a level of transparency that allows for immediate detection of changes in nuclear posture or a significant build-up above agreed limits.
At a recent workshop, we explored the nature of trust in specific government functions, the risk and implications of breaking trust in those systems, and how we’d known we were getting close to specific trust breaking points.