July 11, 2004
Firm represents the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York Council of Defense Lawyers and the American Jewish Committee as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court in the high-profile detention case of Jose Padilla, the alleged “dirty bomber.”
The firm recently represented the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York Council of Defense Lawyers and the American Jewish Committee as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court in the high-profile detention case of Jose Padilla, the alleged “dirty bomber.” Federal law enforcement authorities detained Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, at Chicago’s O’Hare airport and then transferred him to New York, where he was held in civilian custody as a material witness to the September 11th terrorist attacks. The President subsequently designated Mr. Padilla an unlawful “enemy combatant” and directed the military to take him into custody. The military transported Mr. Padilla to a naval brig in South Carolina, and held him there for over two years, incommunicado for most of that time. Mr. Padilla’s court-appointed attorney, acting as “next friend,” petitioned for habeas corpus relief in the Southern District of New York. The petition progressed through the federal courts and ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where it joined two other important habeas cases, those of Yasser Hamdi and the Guantanamo Detainees. Together, these cases raised pressing questions about the scope of the President’s power to detain and the ability of detainees to challenge their captivity.
On behalf of its clients, the firm’s Supreme Court amicus brief in Mr. Padilla’s case argued that any evaluation of the scope of the President’s power to detain suspected enemy combatants had to take into account the fundamental individual rights of the detainees and could not be made based on a hypothetical struggle between legislative and executive power. The amicus brief contended that the President’s seizure and incommunicado detention of Mr. Padilla could not be sustained in light of Mr. Padilla’s rights to due process and to petition for habeas corpus relief. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Mr. Padilla’s case, deciding instead that the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his habeas petition. Even so, the firm’s efforts represented an important contribution to the dialogue on the tension between individual rights and the war on terror.
New York partner Benito Romano and Washington partner Joseph Davis spearheaded Willkie’s representation in this matter. Mr. Romano and Mr. Davis are members of Willkie’s Litigation Department.
