Supreme Court Will Not Review Padilla Case

The Supreme Court ruled today that they will not hear Padilla's challenge of his detention by the federal government:

Because the government recently transferred Padilla to a regular prison and charged him with conventional crimes, the detention issue is now "hypothetical," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, taking the unusual step of explaining the court's reasons for avoiding the matter.

"Even if the Court were to rule in Padilla's favor," Kennedy went on, "his present custody status would be unaffected. Padilla is scheduled to be tried on criminal charges. Any consideration of what rights he might be able to assert if he were returned to military custody would be hypothetical, and to no effect, at this stage of the proceedings."

Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter dissented from the ruling:

"This case . . . raises a question of profound importance to the Nation," Ginsburg wrote. "Does the President have authority to imprison indefinitely a United States citizen arrested on United States soil distant from a zone of combat, based on an Executive declaration that the citizen was, at the time of his arrest, an 'enemy combatant' "?

I don't really characterize this as a "victory" for the Bush administration necessarily. Though it's infuriating that the Bush administration would first hold him indefinitely, then sensing that their victory in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals might be fleeting, transferred him to civilian authorities and argued that the appeal was now "moot", those actions indicate they were merely trying to avoid judicial accountability. Had the court heard this case and ruled for the government, that would have been a victory. This is more a tactical retreat.

Overall though I think I agree with the court on this one. On general principles, it's a good idea to hear cases in which the resolution actually matters, and not make decisions even on the most compelling issues where the results don't really effect anyone in particular. You could argue that's a streak of conservatism that runs in me, but I consider it pragmatism. The reason the Bush administration decided not to fight this is because the wild claims they made about Padilla upon his arrest gradually fell apart, and the Supreme Court would be unlikely to sustain the indefinite military detention of an American citizen who actually didn't do anything all that remarkable. However, that doesn't mean the issue is dead. The Bush administration still claims these powers, and would probably fight a challenge in another set of circumstances all the way to the top. And truth be told, true opponents to such detention should welcome an opportunity to challenge it when the person being held actually did something really bad; a victory in such circumstances would be far more compelling.