Judge Brown's Sleight-of-Hand in Al-Bihani--And Why It Matters...

It can be very difficult these days to follow all of the developments in the Guantanamo litigation, even for those of us who are fairly active in it.  Thus, I thought I'd take a minute to blog about the Government's very significant brief in response to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in al-Bihani v. Obama, filed yesterday in the D.C. Circuit (and discussed by Lyle Denniston @ SCOTUSblog here).  [Full disclosure: I co-authored an amicus brief in support of rehearing en banc.]

The Government's brief is telling in two distinct respects.  First, as Lyle notes, the Government all-but concedes the principal ground on which al-Bihani is seeking rehearing en banc -- i.e., that the panel's sweeping holding that detention authority under the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is not informed (or constrained) by the laws of war is thoroughly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's analysis in Hamdi (and, to a lesser extent, Hamdan). 

But the second telling feature of the Government's brief, which is perhaps even more significant, is its full-bore defense of the al-Bihani panel's procedural discussion (which held, in effect, that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to exceedingly few procedural protections in their habeas cases notwithstanding Boumediene). In particular, at page 13 of their brief (page 17 of the PDF), the Government notes that "The panel simply recognized – correctly – that the habeas review mandated by Boumediene need not match the procedures that apply to habeas challenges to criminal convictions."

This statement is an entirely fair summary of what the al-Bihani majority actually held. But, like the panel opinion itself, it is an incredibly deceptive reading of Boumediene. Here's the relevant passage from al-Bihani, with citations omitted (and emphasis added):

Habeas review for Guantanamo detainees need not match the procedures developed by Congress and the courts specifically for habeas challenges to criminal convictions. Boumediene’s holding explicitly stated that habeas procedures for detainees "need not resemble a criminal trial." It instead invited ‘‘innovation’’ of habeas procedure by lower courts, granting leeway for ‘‘[c]ertain accommodations [to] be made to reduce the burden habeas corpus proceedings will place on the military.’’ Boumediene’s holding therefore places Al–Bihani’s procedural argument on shaky ground. The Suspension Clause protects only the fundamental character of habeas proceedings, and any argument equating that fundamental character with all the accoutrements of habeas for domestic criminal defendants is highly suspect.

Do you see the sleight-of-hand? In the quoted passage, Boumediene was referring to the procedural protections that attach to criminal trials themselves, not to "habeas challenges to criminal convictions." Indeed, the procedural protections that attach to post-conviction proceedings (especially non-capital cases) pale in comparison to those that the Constitution and various statutes require in criminal trials, especially these days. So, the al-Bihani majority conflated criminal trials with criminal (post-conviction) habeas, suggesting that, because Boumediene held that Guantanamo habeas petitions need not have the protections attendant to criminal trials, they also need not have the (far lesser) protections attendant to post-conviction habeas petitions.

More than that, though, a closer read of Boumediene suggests that the opposite should be true--i.e., that more process is due in the context of Guantanamo habeas than normal post-conviction habeas. Consider this (long) passage from Justice Kennedy's opinion:

[W]here relief is sought from a sentence that resulted from the judgment of a court of record, . . . considerable deference is owed to the court that ordered confinement. Likewise in those cases the prisoner should exhaust adequate alternative remedies before filing for the writ in federal court. Both aspects of federal habeas corpus review are justified because it can be assumed that, in the usual course, a court of record provides defendants with a fair, adversary proceeding. In cases involving state convictions this framework also respects federalism; and in federal cases it has added justification because the prisoner already has had a chance to seek review of his conviction in a federal forum through a direct appeal. 

The present cases fall outside these categories, however; for here the detention is by executive order. Where a person is detained by executive order, rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. A criminal conviction in the usual course occurs after a judicial hearing before a tribunal disinterested in the outcome and committed to procedures designed to ensure its own independence. These dynamics are not inherent in executive detention orders or executive review procedures. In this context the need for habeas corpus is more urgent. The intended duration of the detention and the reasons for it bear upon the precise scope of the inquiry. Habeas corpus proceedings need not resemble a criminal trial, even when the detention is by executive order. But the writ must be effective. The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause for detention and the Executive’s power to detain.

In short, then, Boumediene contemplated more process for the Guantanamo detainees than typical post-conviction cases, not less. Thus, the baseline of the D.C. Circuit's analysis in al-Bihani is fundamentally flawed, in ways that could deeply prejudice current and future cases. What's worse, whether the panel's misreading of Boumediene was accidental or deliberate, the Government compounds the error by invoking it as a reason for denying rehearing en banc.

There are still hard questions in these cases about how much process is due. But al-Bihani badly misread Hamdi on the relevance vel non of the laws of war, and misread Boumediene even more fundamentally on the underlying baseline for assessing the appropriate procedural protections. It's baffling to me that the Government would (1) concede the former, but not the latter; and (2) still oppose rehearing en banc anyway.