Prompt 1: Evaluating the Importance of Historical Context in Boumediene V. Bush (2008)

Boumediene v. Bush was a landmark case in the United States. The Supreme Court determined in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that Guantánamo prisoners had the right to submit habeas corpus petitions to federal courts in Washington to ascertain whether the U.S. government had sufficient evidence to support their prolonged open-ended incarceration without trial. The court’s ruling overturning D.C. was published. Circuit’s decision.82 The Court sided with D.C. Consequently, assuming the law is constitutionally sound, the D.C. Circuit will not have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by Guantanamo inmates that were pending on the day of its implementation. It would be appropriate for the Circuit to dismiss the petitions.

The Supreme Court has cited multiple jurisprudence on the matter of habeas corpus and how this issue might apply to these cases. For instance, the Court concluded that petitioners are covered with the privilege to file for the writ, even though the D.C. Circuit concluded that it was unnecessary to assess whether habeas corpus could be adequately replaced. Normally, this Court remands cases for further examination of unresolved issues, but in “extraordinary” cases, an exemption to this norm may be justified. The Court uses the historical context of Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services, Inc., 543 U.S. Which mentions the serious separation-of-powers concerns that these cases pose as well as the reality that petitioners have long been deprived of rightful access to a courtroom. The court also mentioned Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 wherein applying the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s jury clauses to American citizens being tried by U.S.S. Both the concurrences and the plurality recognized the importance of practical concerns, not linked to the citizenship of the petitioners but rather the location of their detention and trial.

Prompt 2: Should the New Deal be Considered a Legal Success?

The New Deal was determined as both successful and failure by different economic scholars, however, while the New Deal was rumored to save capitalism in the US, its failure lies in its technicalities and the Government’s inadequacy to act on several issues. For instance, the Supreme Court in Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), involved the Franklin Roosevelt administration’s “hot oil” orders, which were enacted under the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which prohibited interstate and international trade in petroleum products produced more than state quotas. The decision was one of many that struck down important components of the administration’s New Deal legislative agenda. Since the relevant provision 9(c) of the NIRA enabled presidential trade interdiction without establishing standards for the proposed restriction’s implementation, it was determined that it constituted an illegal transfer of legislative power. By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court sided with the oil companies, concluding that Congress had improperly transferred its regulatory authority to the President without first formulating a solidified statement of legal policy and establishing a specific set of guidelines by which the President was authorized to act.

Another jurisprudence through Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) provided another legal failure on the New Deal where the Court made a distinction between quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial officers and executive officers. The Court ruled that the former serves under the influence of the President and may be ousted in his favor, but the latter may only be dismissed via processes complying with legislative restrictions set by Congress. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which stated that the President could only remove an FTC commissioner “for neglect of duty, inefficiency, or malfeasance in office,” served as the foundation for his lawsuit. Humphrey passed away on February 14, 1934, and his wife, acting as executor of his estate, continued the lawsuit for back pay up to the date of his passing (with interest). When Roosevelt ousted Humphrey from the FTC, Associate Justice George Sutherland cited the court’s ruling, concluding that Roosevelt had indeed overstepped his power since Congress had intended for regulatory agencies like the FTC to be free from executive control. Because it decided cases and issued regulations, the Federal Trade Commission was declared by the court to be a quasi-legislative body. Thus, the President was not permitted to dismiss a member for purely political grounds. Therefore, it was wrong to fire Humphrey.

Another legal failure of the New Deal revolves around ALA Schechter Poultry Corp. V. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) where jurisprudence states that the codes of fair competition, which the NIRA gave the President the authority to issue, were declared invalid by the Court on a unanimous vote by Chief Justice Hughes. The Court determined that the codes were unconstitutional because they represented an improper transfer of legislative authority to the executive branch. The Court further determined that the NIRA provisions exceeded the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause.

Prompt 3: Constitutionality of the use of Military Commissions to Try Detainees in WWII and the Global War on Terror.

Military Commissions during World War II and the Global War on Terror are different from each other. For instance, the question of the constitutionality of both commissions differs in terms of addressing the main issues during their period of establishment. During the Global War on Terror, since the notion of the trial of war crimes was not new, the establishment of new military commissions and human rights conditions on these detainees were common concerns regarding constitutionality. In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), after originally rejecting review, the Supreme Court took the case and, in a 5–4 ruling, held that Suspension Clause protected Guantánamo detainees who had been designated as enemy detainees and qualified for petition of habeas, despite having been categorized as such. The president’s use of military courts was constrained by the court. They concluded that the military courts were not authorized by Congress, were not necessary for military purposes, and were in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

During World War II, the establishments of military commissions were common to try war criminals. However, compared to the strict scrutiny of the Supreme Court in establishing commissions to try war criminals in the war on terror, the Supreme Court was more lenient and adhered to the need of urgency to address issues on establishing military commissions to try war criminals in World War II. For instance, Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was tried by a military commission for breaking the rules of war as prepared by Army Forces stationed in the Eastern Pacific. In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of the commission, ruling that the President and other military commanders had the authority, following the laws of war, as enshrined in Article of War 15, to try enemy combatants by military commission for breaking the laws of war. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which holds trials of Japanese officials for war crimes and other charges in Tokyo, Japan, is also established by the US and its allies.

References

ALA Schechter Poultry Corp. V. United States. (1935). 295 U.S. 495

Cooper Industries Inc v. Aviall Servies Inc. (2004). 543 U.S. 157

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (2006).

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. (1935). 295 U.S. 602

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935). 293 U.S. 388

Reid v. Covert. (1957). 354 U.S. 1

Yamashita. (1946) 327 U.S. 1