Jose
Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested in Chicago's O'Hare International
Airport after returning from Pakistan in 2002. He was initially detained as a
material witness in the government's investigation of the al Qaeda terrorist
network, but was later declared an "enemy combatant" by the
Department of Defense, meaning that he could be held in prison indefinitely
without access to an attorney or to the courts. The FBI claimed that he was
returning to the United States to carry out acts of terrorism.
Donna
Newman, who had represented him while he was being held as a material witness,
filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf. The U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York ruled that Newman had standing to file the
petition despite the fact that Padilla had been moved to a military brig in
South Carolina.
However, the
court also found that the Department of Defense, under the President's
constitutional powers as Commander in Chief and the statutory authorization
provided by Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, had the power
to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. The district judge rejected Newman's
argument that the detention was prohibited by the federal Non-Detention Act,
which states that no "citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by
the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress."
On appeal,
a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed the district court's
"enemy combatant" ruling. The panel found that the Authorization for
Use of Military force did not meet the requirement of the Non-Detention Act and
that the President could not, therefore, declare American citizens captured
outside a combat zone as enemy combatants.
Issue: Does
Congress's "Authorization for use of Military Force" authorize the
President to detain a United States citizen based on a determination that he is
an enemy combatant, or is that power precluded by the Non-Detention Act?
It is expected that attorneys and witnesses will
supplement these basic facts with research on the circumstances surrounding the
case. All outside research must be properly cited, using footnote format. AT
LEAST ONE SOURCE CITED HERE MUST BE A BOOK OTHER THAN A REFERENCE WORK.
Attorneys’ papers missing this research will not be accepted.
Roles
attorneys
for United States:
attorneys
for Padilla:
Jose Padilla:
President Bush:
Due on the day of the
trial
For attorneys:
A two-page essay arguing your case. You must argue for or against the
constitutionality of the executive orders and the ensuing laws. Assume that Schenck
broke the law – he does not contest that question – argue whether the law can
stand. This paper may serve as the basis for your opening statements in class. Some
outside research on the circumstances of the case will be necessary
For witnesses:
A two-page essay in the form of an “affidavit,” explaining your position. You
need not argue over the constitutionality of the law, just describe and explain
your behavior.
Due the class meeting
after the trial
For Justices:
A one-page essay declaring your opinion in the matter. Present your decision
and explain how you came to it.
Procedures:
8:15-8:30 Meet with your group to review the case
8:30 – 8:40 Opening arguments. Attorneys must present a three-minute
minimum argument before the court.
8:40 – 8:55 (maximum) questioning of Padilla (appellant first)
8:55 – 9:10 (maximum) questioning of Bush (respondent first)
9:10 – 9:15 closing
arguments
9:15 – 9:35 Justices deliberate
Each student will earn an essay
(for the written work) and an oral presentation
grade (for in-class work).
No comments:
Post a Comment