White House Loses Boumediene Case: Supreme Court Sides Against Bush, Protects Habeas Corpus

The Supreme Court has sided against the Bush Administration in the Boumediene case, saying that the White House cannot refuse prisoners habeas corpus unless it does so under the Constitution's Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause only allows for suspension in cases of rebellion or invasion. In effect, foreign terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay will have constitutional rights to appeal their detentions.

Boumediene vs. Bush challenged the legality of Lakhar Boumediene's detention at Guantanamo Bay. Lakhar Boumediene is an Algerian native and naturalized citizen of Bosnia. He was arrested after Sept. 11 when he was suspected of plotting an attack against the United States Embassy in Sarajevo.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of Boumediene.

White House loses Boumediene Case: The Supreme Court decision

Anthony Kennedy, the traditional swing voter of the Supreme Court, wrote the majority opinion for Boumediene vs. Bush. Citing the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison case, he wrote that "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is,' " Kennedy also argued that the Suspension Clause "protects the rights of the detained by a means consistent with the essential design of the Constitution. It ensures that, except during periods of formal suspension, the Judiciary will have a time-tested device, the writ, to maintain the 'delicate balance of governance' that is itself the surest safeguard of liberty." Joining Anthony Kennedy were the traditionally liberal justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

On the dissenting side of Boumediene vs. Bush were traditionally conservative justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Antonin Scalia argued that America was "at war with radical Islamists," and that the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed."

White House loses Boumediene Case: Effects of the Supreme Court Decision

President Bush disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling of Boumediene vs. Bush. He argued that the ruling caused serious concerns about U.S. national security. Although this decision is a blow to President Bush's anti-terrorism efforts, he plans to abide by the Supreme Court's decision.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Boumediene demonstrates the effectiveness of our system of checks and balances. Although Bush and Congress had previously agreed to take away the prisoners' habeas corpus rights, Anthony Kennedy argued that branches of government do not have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.

Yet in the ongoing struggle to balance national security and civil liberties, there are several questions that the Boumediene ruling does not answer: on what grounds could foreign nationals be justifiably detained? Does the Constitution apply to those being detained outside Guantanamo? What conditions would the prisoners experience during their detention?

The outcome of this election may provide future answers. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have spoken in favor of closing Guanatamo. Yet future appointments of Supreme Court justices could determine the direction of the national security vs. civil liberties debate. Obama will probably appoint justices like Ginsburg and Breyer. McCain's choices would be a more uncertain. While social conservatives may prefer justices like Scalia and Alito, moderate McCain may prefer to appoint moderates like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.

While Boumediene is a victory for defenders of habeas corpus, the ruling leaves more questions than answers: answers which will have to be addressed in the future by the Supreme Court.