(SCOTUS) Justices to Hear Suit of Ashcroft Over Detention

[Poll_Blind]

From New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Abdullah al-Kidd, born in Kansas and once a star running back at the University of Idaho, spent 16 days in federal detention in three states in 2003, sometimes naked and sometimes shackled hand and foot, but was never charged with a crime.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether he may sue John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, for what Mr. Kidd contends was an unconstitutional use of a law meant to hold “material witnesses.” Mr. Kidd says the law was used as a pretext for detaining him because he was suspected of terrorist activities.

--snip--

Mr. Kidd, who described himself in a 2004 interview as “anti-bin Laden, anti-Taliban, anti-suicide bombing, anti-terrorism,” was never called to testify as a witness.

The Obama administration had urged the justices to reverse a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, that had allowed Mr. Kidd’s lawsuit to proceed. “If permitted to stand,” Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal wrote, “the decision below would seriously limit the circumstances in which prosecutors could invoke the material witness statute without fear of personal liability.”

--snip--

Justice Elena Kagan disqualified herself from the case because she had worked on it when she was United States Solicitor General.

SCOTUS typically takes on cases like this when they're going to reverse or in some way clarify the decision by the lower court. Otherwise, they let the ruling stand. This is just one of the Bush-era court cases which the Obama administration is actively continuing to pursue and defend the merits of.

In continuing to defend these practices so vigorously I am left confused about exactly how much sunlight there is between the previous administration and the current administration's views on the matter. The man's hands are not tied. Such is the privilege of the president, after all.

There is, floating around, the idea that these court cases (like DADT) are continuing to be pursued by the Obama administration so they will reach the highest courts and be struck down. That anything less, that any ruling made by a lower court, if let unchallenged by the current administration, would only last until a new administration comes in- and that review by the highest court is an imperative.

Well, it's an attempt at an explanation, anyway.

Of course, nobody does much talking about how brilliant a plan that is given the relatively left-leaning (or should I say, Constitutionally-deferrant) lower courts in comparison to our very right-leaning Supreme Court at the moment.

:shrug:

PB