I'll go into the legal issues in more detail in a later post, but I want to draw your attention to Marty Lederman's incisive post on the strategy being employed by the Solicitor General in defending the DC Circuit's Boumediene decision. I strongly criticized the decision here.

Marty says:

As I predicted (see here and here), the SG -- no doubt aware that the Court is likely to hold that the Constitution protects the detainees at GTMO -- has decided to focus the case on the much closer question, which is whether the D.C. Circuit review of CSRT determinations, prescribed in the DTA and MCA, is an "adequate substitute" for habeas, assuming that the detainees at GTMO do have constitutionally protected habeas rights.

As a litigator who has argued a number of appeals, I do admire the first rate lawyering from the SG's office. The focus on the narrower non-Constitutional question and away from the weakest part of the decision is executed deftly and smartly by the SG.

As appellate craftsmanship, it is more than first rate; it is a wonderfully argued brief. I think it could ultimately fail to persuade but, as I said, the craftsmanship is truly admirable.