Feds Seek Emergency Stay of Indefinite Detention Decision

Last week I wrote about Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest's granting of a permanent injunction against the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act. Her 112 page opinion is here.

The feds sought a stay pending appeal from Judge Forrest but she denied it.

Today, the feds appealed to the Second Circuit, seeking an emergency stay of Judge Forrest's ruling. Wired has the details and the 154 page brief is here. [More...]

The Government argues:

  • First, the district court has enjoined wholesale an Act of Congress on the ground that it is facially unconstitutional.
  • Second, the injunction, which was entered against the President as Commander-in-Chief in his conduct of ongoing military operations, is unprecedented and exceeded the court’s authority.
  • Third, a stay will not harm plaintiffs and plaintiffs have no standing. (The plaintiffs are not detainees but a variety of journalists.)
  • Fourth, the district court’s objections to Section 1021(b)(2) are, as stated before, at odds with the interpretation that has been given to the President’s detention authority by two Presidents, the D.C. Circuit, and the Congress itself.

The Government wants the order stayed pending the outcome of its appeal.

< Jeffrey MacDonald Gets New Hearing 42 Years After Crime | Al Sharpton Says On One Issue, He'll Fight for the 1% >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And what exactly is this so-called (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    "emergency" that requires that the injunction against the exercise of arbitrary detention authority, to be used against citizen civilians under the President's "commander-in-chief" power, be stayed immediately?

    They'd tell you, but then... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    well, you know how that one goes...

    "The feds" = administration led by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Andreas on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 01:09:46 AM EST
    Be careful who you vote for. He might send people to jail indefinitely to defend the capitalist system.

    Yeah, for now... (none / 0) (#6)
    by unitron on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 08:08:13 AM EST
    ...but do you really want a President Romney in office with those kinds of powers?

    I don't want (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by sj on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 08:15:13 AM EST
    anyone in office with those kinds of powers.  

    Since you're asking about "wants".


    This is So Dumb... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    ...that even a 7th grad civics student knows in America, you can not keep someone locked up indefinitely, without a trial.

    Maybe if the Fed can't find a judge here, they can take it to Cuba or N Korea where they don't pretend to care about human rights.

    If only we lived in a nation where opposing parties didn't agree so much on violating the very document that is suppose to be the law for everyone.

    But you have to give mad props to Judge Forrest, one of a very few who still take their jobs and the Constitution seriously.

    Stay Entered Tonight By Second Circuit (none / 0) (#3)
    by bmaz on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 12:17:21 AM EST
    A one-judge, temporary stay, that is (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    for ten days, unexplained, until a full three-judge panel can consider the matter.

    I think that was clear in the post (none / 0) (#10)
    by bmaz on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    Said fact aside, do you for one second thing the full motions panel will not grant the requested stay pending appeal, when it considers it on the 28th?

    I don't.


    In the future (to paraphrase Laurie Anderson) (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 07:28:30 AM EST
    Accurately quoting the Justice Department will be considered trolling.