Skip to content Skip to main menu
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Academic Rules
    • View Evaluations
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
    • RoloLaw
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff
    • COVID-19 Information

    Support

    • Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Faculty Support Unit
    • Berkeley Law Events
    • Business Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Building Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Information
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    For Students

    • Dean of Students Office
    • Academic Policies
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
    • Inclusive Restrooms
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

UC Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Criminal Justice
      • Environment and Energy
      • Human Rights
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • Past LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendars
          • 2023 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2022 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2021 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2020 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2019 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
          • 2018 LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • LL.M. Executive Track Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Steps to Apply
        • Application Forms & Deadlines
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Checklist
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Ways to Fund Your Studies
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing Resources
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admission
          • Steps to Apply
          • Application Form & Deadline
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Checklist
          • Check Application Status
        • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
          • Cost of Attendance for JSD
          • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • JSP Student Awards cont.
        • JSP Student Placements cont.
        • Events Calendar »
    • Certificates & Honors
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • One Year Curriculum Planner
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2024-2025 Academic Calendar
      • 2025 LL.M. Executive Track Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2023-2024 Academic Calendar
        • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
        • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
      • Future Academic Calendars
        • 2025-2026 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
          • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony – Who’s Coming
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • Transfer & Visiting Student Applicants
        • Pre-Law Preparatory Academy
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Plan Your Visit
        • Virtual Engagement
        • Recruitment Events
        • Law Building Tour
        • View the Prospectus
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Studying at Berkeley Law
      • Living in the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
          • Native American Opportunity Plan
          • Financial Aid for Active Military and Veteran J.D. Students
          • Resources For Bar Related Expenses
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
        • Tuition & Fees
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • Forms
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • LRAP & PSLF Testimonials
          • LRAP FAQs
        • Satisfactory Academic Progress
        • Withdrawals and Financial Aid
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty on Social Media
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Guess Who’s Coming to Jury Duty?: How the Failure to Collect Juror Demographic Data Contributes to Whitewashing the Jury Box
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • Lawsuit Filed Over Radioactive Waste at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
      • Global Rights Innovation Lab Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
      • Human Rights Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Featured Reports and Projects
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
          • Georgia Valentine
        • Clinic News
        • Resources and Publications
        • Juvenile Fees
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
          • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
        • Adult Fees
          • Ending Unjust and Ineffective Criminal Fees in California
        • Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
        • Access Reports
      • Social Enterprise Clinic
        • About Us
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How to Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • Business Community Legal Advice Workshop
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Climate Migration & Displacement Project
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Family Defense Project
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Queer Justice Project
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Community Defense Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Alaska
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawai’i
          • Kentucky
          • Mississippi
          • Montana
          • U.S./Mexico Border
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • IRAP Project
        • David Nahmias
        • Angélica César & Mackenzie Gettel
        • Skylar Cushing
        • Addie Gilson & Eli McClintock-Shapiro
        • Tori Porell, Supervising Attorney FosterEd
        • Drug Policy, Education, and Decriminalization (DECrim) Project
        • Caity Lynch, JD ’25
        • Berkeley Immigration Group SLP Supervising Attorneys
        • Family Defense Project
        • Gabby Cirelli, JD ’24
        • Brooke D’Amore Bradley, JD ’23
        • Taiya Tkachuk, ’24
        • Emily Chuah ’24
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
    • Advocacy Competitions Program
      • Eligibility by Class Year
      • Internal Competitions
        • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • 2025 McBaine Competition
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court Competition 2024 Photo Essay
          • Previous Years’ McBaine Competitions
          • Past McBaine Winners
          • McBaine — Frequently Asked Questions
          • Helpful Materials
        • Halloum Negotiation Competition (Spring)
          • Competition FAQ
          • Previous Winners
        • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
        • Bales Trial Competition
      • External Competitions (BOA)
        • BOA Tryouts
        • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
        • Moot Court Team
        • Tech & IP Team
        • Trial Team
      • Competition Videos
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • How to Apply
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • Administrative Rules
      • Frequently Asked Questions
      • Field Placement Program Evaluation Database
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Ninth Circuit Practicum
    • Domestic Violence & Gender-Based Violence Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • History & Impact
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • CDO Email Archive
      • Appointments and Drop-In Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • How to Apply to Private Sector Jobs
          • 2L Summer Private Sector Job Search
          • OCI Alternatives
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
          • Public Interest/Public Sector Employer Events & Resources
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Your 2L and 3L PIPS Job Search
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • PI/PS Job Search Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions & Resources
        • Alumni Clerkship & Judicial Staff Directory
        • Clerkship Yearbooks
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
      • Judicial Externships
      • OCI Programs
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • OCI Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • Executive Education
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Help the CDO
    • Careers in Law Teaching
      • Alumni Faculty Directory
      • Videos of Academic Placement Committee Programs
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
  1. Home
  2. Articles
  3. News
  4. Op-Eds – ARCHIVAL
  5. Justice Stevens, Guantanamo, and the Rule of Law

Justice Stevens, Guantanamo, and the Rule of Law

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on Bluesky
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article

By Daniel A. Farber, SCOTUS Blog

Below is the first essay for our thirty-day series on John Paul Stevens, by Daniel A. Farber, the Sho Sato Professor of Law at Berkeley.  Farber worked as a law clerk for Justice Stevens during the 1976 Supreme Court Term.

Perhaps because of his career as a litigator before he became a judge, Justice Stevens has always shown a deep appreciation for process values.  This attitude could appear in undramatic cases involving routine procedural issues.  It also figured heavily in a much more significant context: the dispute over whether detainees at Guantanamo after 9/11 were entitled to voice their claims in court.

The Bush Administration had chosen Guantanamo as a detention site in the belief that the military base was immune from federal habeas jurisdiction, allowing the executive branch to operate without any legal restraint. Justice Stevens played a key role in defending the rule of law against this effort by the executive branch to create a legal black hole. The ultimate question in the case was whether the President could operate outside the bounds of the Constitution. This historic confrontation between the Supreme Court and the executive branch illustrates Justice Stevens’s commitment to due process, his ability to create coalitions, and his judicial craftsmanship.

These opinions also exemplify the lawyerly nature of Stevens’s work.  Unlike Justice Scalia, he rarely plays to the galleries, larding opinions with nuggets meant to be quoted in the op-ed pages.  Instead, his opinions feature careful attention to the nuances of statutory language and precedent, analytic power.  The Guantanamo opinions are apt examples.

Justice Stevens’s first majority opinion involving Guantanamo was Rasul v. Bush, in which the Court held that the habeas statute covered Guantanamo. The Bush Administration had argued otherwise on the ground that Guantanamo was foreign soil.  This argument was an exercise in form over substance: the U.S. enjoys unlimited control over the base for the indefinite future, but the lease recites as a sop to Cuban sensitivities that Cuba retains “ultimate sovereignty” over the base.  Justice Stevens’s Rasul opinion carefully dissected the precedents on habeas jurisdiction outside the United States.  The result was a pivotal ruling in terms of the rights of the Guantanamo detainees, who would otherwise have had no access to federal courts in which to challenge their treatment. Justice Scalia wrote in dissent for himself, then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Thomas.

Two years later, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Justice Stevens led the Court in overturning the Bush Administration’s efforts to evade legal restrictions. His opinion built on Rasul and also showed that the Court was not inclined to acquiesce to congressional or presidential efforts to limit its jurisdiction.   Hamdan involved the use of military commissions to try enemy combatants under the first presidential order discussed earlier. In an opinion by Justice Stevens, the Court held that the President lacked the power to establish military tribunals under congressional enactments and under the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the Court held that the military commission convened to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who allegedly served as Osama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard, lacked the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violated both the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens also reasoned that regardless of whether Hamdan had been charged with an offense generally cognizable by military commissions, the commission here did not have the authority to proceed because its procedures were illegal. Summarizing the Court’s holding, Justice Stevens said that “in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the rule of law that prevails in this jurisdiction.”

After Hamdan, Congress reacted by leaping into the detainee issue. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCA”) eliminated the writ of habeas corpus for any “alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”   As John Yoo said, “[I]t is a rare and extraordinary thing for Congress to checkmate the Supreme Court as it did,” and he wondered whether it would “serve as a sufficient warning to the courts not to meddle in the business of the political branches….”

As it turned out, Congress’s decision to step into the detainee issue did not deter the Court. The Court struck down the MCA’s jurisdiction-stripping provision in Boumediene v. Bush. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the United States’ de facto sovereignty over Guantanamo was sufficient to bring it within the scope of the constitutional guarantee of habeas and that the MCA was therefore a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. Justice Stevens joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion and did not write separately. But as a concurrence by Justice Souter explained, Boumediene was a predictable extension of Justice Stevens’s opinion in Rasul.

Technically, Rasul rested on statutory grounds whereas Boumediene rested on constitutional grounds, but the language in Rasul suggested fundamental objections to depriving detainees of habeas protections. Thus, as the concurring Justices said, “[N]o one who reads the Court’s opinion in Rasul could seriously doubt that the jurisdictional question must be answered the same way in purely constitutional cases, given the Court’s reliance on the historical background of habeas generally in answering the statutory question.” In a vehement if not intemperate dissent, Justice Scalia  played to the galleries with an angry proclamation that the Court’s decision would “almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” and that the “Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”

Although the post-9/11 cases reflect special concerns relating to national security and presidential power, they also reflect preexisting disputes among the Justices about how to interpret statutes involving habeas jurisdiction. Justice Stevens’s support for habeas was not an ad hoc attempt to check the Bush Administration, but instead rested on a deeper commitment to ensuring access to the courts.  Indeed, his commitment had become clear in a decision involving habeas in immigration cases that was decided just before 9/11.

The immigration decision, INS v. St. Cyr, involved the application of newly enacted restrictions on the availability of habeas for aliens in the context of deportation. Justice Stevens  relied on a strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action and on the longstanding rule requiring a clear and unambiguous statement of congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction. In the Court’s view, “Implications from statutory text or legislative history are not sufficient to repeal habeas jurisdiction; instead, Congress must articulate specific and unambiguous statutory directives to effect a repeal.” These clear statement rules were bolstered by the canon against interpreting statutes in ways that raise serious constitutional doubts. The Suspension Clause protects against legislative restrictions on habeas in deportation cases, and even in 1789 the case would have fallen squarely within the common law writ of habeas corpus. To conclude that the writ was no longer available in this context would have represented a marked departure from historical immigration law practice. Indeed, the Court said, “The fact that this Court would be required to answer the difficult question of what the Suspension Clause protects is in and of itself a reason to avoid answering the constitutional questions that would be raised by concluding that review was barred entirely.” In the Court’s view, none of the 1996 provisions clearly negated jurisdiction under the general habeas provision.

As in St. Cyr, Justice Stevens in Hamdan construed narrowly the restriction on judicial review enacted by Congress.  A key issue was whether the restriction applied to cases filed before its enactment.  In dissent Justice Scalia invoked what he claimed to be an inviolate rule that statutory restrictions on jurisdiction apply to all pending cases unless Congress plainly speaks to the contrary.  He relied primarily on nineteenth-century cases and on a 1950s case by Chief Justice Vinson quoting from the older cases.  Justice Stevens argued that the older cases were distinguishable – they had generally involved some indication that Congress wanted the statute to apply retroactively – and that post-1950 cases had changed the rules about statutory retroactivity anyway, even as to jurisdictional statutes.  As to the latter point, he was able to rely on some startlingly apropos language from an opinion by Justice Thomas.  On the whole, despite Scalia’s claims about the destruction of a centuries-old ironclad rule, Justice Stevens had the better of the dispute.

Justice Stevens’s post-9/11 habeas opinions have occasional flights of rhetoric, but for the most part they read like routine applications of technical legal reasoning. The rules regarding application of jurisdictional statutes to pending cases, for instance, are hardly the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Yet this rhetorical flatness is entirely in tune with the fundamental point of these decisions, which is that “the law” remains in effect and applicable even in times of crisis when national security is at stake. And “the law,” by and large, is boring and complicated. What these opinions stand for, both in rhetoric and in substance, is an insistence that the government abide by the law of the land. In particular, the government must respect the right of individuals to be heard in their own defense.

04/19/2010

News

  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2025 Archive
    • 2024 Archive
    • 2023 Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Media Release Form
    • UC Berkeley Law Logo (Identity)
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
  • Law School Images »
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • TikTok
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Relay 711
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2025 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.