Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Habeas Corpus Law In The Ninth Circuit After Mendoza V. Carey: A New Era?, Jay W. Spencer
Habeas Corpus Law In The Ninth Circuit After Mendoza V. Carey: A New Era?, Jay W. Spencer
Seattle University Law Review
After a brief review in Part II of the current habeas corpus appeals practice following the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),9 Part III of this Note will examine the factual and procedural history of Mendoza. Next, Part IV will analyze the case's majority and dissenting opinions. Finally, Part V contrasts Mendoza with factually similar cases in other jurisdictions and demonstrates that, even though the Ninth Circuit stands alone, its ruling strikes a proper balance between limiting abuse of the writ and ensuring that it remains available to all inmates who diligently pursue …
Stacking The Deck Against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits On The Government's Power To Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens As Enemy Combatants, Nickolas A. Kacprowski
Stacking The Deck Against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits On The Government's Power To Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens As Enemy Combatants, Nickolas A. Kacprowski
Seattle University Law Review
This Note examines Padilla v. Bush as an example of the contemporary application of enemy combatant law. This Note argues that in present and future applications of enemy combatant law, courts should treat Padilla as the preferred model of application because Padilla preserves more Constitutional protections, specifically the right to counsel in bringing a habeas petition, than do Hamdi or Quirin. The Padilla decision is preferable to Hamdi because Padilla restricts the movement of enemy combatant law away from the ex- press criminal protections of the Constitution. In contrast, Hamdi greatly accelerates such movement.