Shayana Kadidal [Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights]: "It was in February of 2002 that the Center for Constitutional Rights and our co-counsel brought the first habeas case in federal court on behalf of detainees held at Guantánamo. Yesterday, June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the part of the Military Commissions Act that attempted to block the federal courts from hearing the claims of our clients at Guantánamo was unconstitutional.

The Court first determined that the individuals at Guantánamo have a right under the Suspension Clause to challenge their detention, basing its decision on fundamental separation of powers principles that informed the Framers understanding of habeas, rather than on the incomplete records of historical habeas cases. The pragmatic approach it took in deciding that the writ reaches Guantánamo still leaves space for similar challenges to U.S. detention facilities elsewhere in the world. The Court then found that the DTA statute failed to provide an adequate substitute for this constitutionally-required habeas review, because it did not make release from custody available as a remedy, offered no procedures for petitioners to present new, exculpatory evidence, and denied them the ability to bring the full range of legal challenges available in a habeas proceeding. As a result, the Court struck down the jurisdiction-stripping section of the MCA that deprived the petitioners of their constitutional right to habeas.

We are hopeful that the lower courts will move quickly to hold hearings in the 200-odd pending individual habeas corpus cases where detainees are challenging their indefinite detention without charges. We anticipate that many of these cases will be decided swiftly because the government lacks any factual or legal basis for imprisoning the men. Without the Court's decision these men might have remained in detention forever without ever having a real chance to argue for their release before an impartial court. With habeas these men — so many of whom have been officially cleared for release by the military — would never have been locked up and abused because no court was watching. We believe the majority of them will be released once the executive is forced to show up in front of a federal judge and justify their detention with hard evidence.

The government's reliance upon information obtained through torture or unlawful coercion to justify the detentions may end up being joined in many such hearings. Before the question of release is reached, other significant issues may be litigated as well: most detainees are being held in solitary confinement, including dozens who are cleared for release; most are losing their minds as a result. In habeas proceedings, petitioners should be able to argue for more humane conditions of confinement. Many detainees are also cleared for release to countries where they may face torture; these men are basically in the position of refugees and countries that can offer them asylum will have to be found before they can be released. Surely some will seek to block their transfer to torture in the courts.

The decision's impact upon the pending military commission cases is indirect. It is likely those trials will continue to progress at their current halting pace. Yesterday's opinion only means that the defendants in those commissions proceedings — less than 20 men are currently charged — may commence parallel proceedings arguing that they should not have ever been detained in the first place.

Major General Jay Hood, former commander at Guantánamo, admitted to the Wall Street Journal that "[s]ometimes we just didn't get the right folks," but innocents remain at the base because "[n]obody wants to be the one to sign the release papers. … there's no muscle in the system." Historically, the federal courts have been that muscle. The Supreme Court's decision ensures that they will be. Ultimately, the administration's strategy with Guantánamo was to run out the clock and leave its mess — much like the war in Iraq — for the next president to clean up. Yesterday's decision — a historic victory for Executive accountability to the courts — will, we hope, prevent this administration from doing so."