Moot/Not Moot—SCOTUS Rejects Padilla Appeal

By a 6‑3 margin today, the United States Supreme Court refused yet another appeal by one‑time “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla—and yet stopped short of handing the government a win.^[1]

The question presented was whether or not Padilla’s request to be released from military custody or charged with a crime was moot by virtue of the fact that he had been transferred to civilian custody for trial in federal court. In previous posts, we have discussed Padilla’s trial, appeal, and his transfer from military to civilian detention.

The Court blithely rejected the mootness argument, yet managed to avoid entering precedent on whether or not the executive may hold its citizens without due process. In Rumsfeld v. Padilla two years ago, the Supreme Court also sidestepped the substantive question regarding wartime detention of citizens under the classification of “enemy combatant” and ruled only that Padilla’s appeal had been filed in the wrong judicial forum.^[2]

Today’s Supreme Court vote split along somewhat predictable lines, with Justice Kennedy as the fulcrum. Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, and Souter voted to hear the appeal while Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas voted against.^[3] Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy stated that because a ruling in his favor would not change Mr. Padilla’s legal status at this point, the separation of power issue is merely “hypothetical.”^[4] Therefore, the Court declined to hear the issue. This sounds like the classic definition of mootness.^[5]

However, the majority added that this particular controversy could become re‑animated and addressed by a writ of habeas corpus action if the government were to reinstate military charges or detention again. Padilla’s defense attorney interpreted this proviso as a message from the Justices that they are “watching and we are not going to let this happen again.”^[6]

Padilla will now, unless the government decides to drop the case completely or to revert back to military charges, be tried on criminal charges in Florida District Court.^[7] Padilla, a U.S.‑born Muslim, was arrested in Florida in 2002 in connection with a government‑discovered plot to drop a “dirty bomb” in the United States and was held as a military prisoner for three years.^[8]

The larger question—to what extent executive “war powers” may supersede individuals’ constitutional rights—is implicated in other cases now making their way through the Supreme Court docket, including the Guantanamo case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

---

[1] David G. Savage, Supreme Court Rejects Padilla Appeal, Los Angeles Times [hereinafter Times], Apr. 3, 2006.
[2] Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).
[3] Times supra note 1.
[4] Padilla v. Hanft, 547 U.S. ____, No. 05‑533, Apr. 3, 2006.
[5] Black’s Law Dictionary 768 (8th ed. 2005) defines mootness as “Having no practical significance; hypothetical or academic ”
[6] James Vicini, Supreme Court Rejects Padilla Appeal, Reuters, Apr. 3, 2006.
[7] Times supra note 1.
[8] Times supra note 1.