Justices refuse to hear case of detainee

Jose Padilla's appeal was rejected because it's now irrelevant, the court said.
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to decide whether the president can detain Americans classified as "enemy combatants" indefinitely and without charges, saying the issue was now irrelevant to the case of terrorism suspect Jose Padilla.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices said that though Padilla had been held for more than three years in legal limbo in a military brig, he had now been charged with criminal conspiracy and was awaiting trial in a Florida prison. Any effort to reconsider his military detention would be "hypothetical, and to no effect at this stage," Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in an unusual written opinion concerning a refusal to hear a case. "Even if the court were to rule in Padilla's favor, his present custody status would be unchanged," Kennedy wrote.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy's opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also voted to reject an appeal.
Sharp disagreement
In a separate opinion, the three remaining justices sharply disagreed with the court's decision, saying Padilla's case raised issues so profound that the court had an obligation to decide them.
"Nothing the government has yet done purports to retract the assertion of executive power Padilla protests," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the dissenters, who included Justices David Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.
Although the government has charged Padilla, she said, nothing prevents President Bush from returning him to military custody or reclassifying him as a combatant.
Kennedy warned that if that were to happen, the courts could -- and should -- "act promptly" to preserve Padilla's rights.
The court's split on the issue was notable, but it doesn't necessarily reflect how it might decide the citizen-detention issue should it come before them later. It's a procedural ruling, not a substantive one, though the net effect is a nominal win for the Bush administration.
Other cases
In other instances, including an earlier case involving Padilla, a majority of the court has expressed uneasiness with many of the Bush administration's detention policies.
Monday's decision also offers few obvious clues as to how the justices will resolve another pending terrorism case, involving military tribunals for foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Several justices expressed sharp doubt during oral arguments last week on the Guantanamo case that the ad hoc proceedings were within constitutional bounds, but the issue in Padilla's case was fundamentally different.
Monday's ruling is a simple acknowledgement by the justices that they need not address every question in the war on terrorism, just the ones that are immediately at issue.
Test of balance
Padilla's saga is a key test not only of the balance between presidential wartime powers and individual rights but also of the balance among the three branches of government. Monday's ruling highlights the deference with which the justices are approaching the separation-of-powers issues.
Monday's action marks the second time that Padilla has struck out on procedural grounds at the Supreme Court. In 2004, the justices ruled that he had filed the original challenge to his detention in the wrong court, without saying whether his captivity was justified.