Jonathan Cohn - Jonathan Cohn is now the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Appellate. He was previously the DAAG overseeing the Office of Immigration Litigation.
Neal Katyal - Neal Katyal, a Professor at Georgetown University Law School, recently won Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in the United States Supreme Court, a case that challenged the policy of military trials at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba.
Katyal previously served as National Security Adviser in the U.S. Justice Department and was commissioned by President Clinton to write a report on the need for more legal pro bono work. He also served as Vice President Al Gore's co-counsel in the Supreme Court election dispute of 2000, and represented the Deans of most major private law schools in the landmark University of Michigan affirmative-action case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).
Katyal clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer as well as Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals. He attended Dartmouth College and Yale Law School. His Articles have appeared in virtually every major law review and newspaper in America.
Katyal was named Lawyer of the Year in 2006 by Lawyers USA, Runner-Up for Lawyer of the Year 2006 by National Law Journal, one of the top 50 litigators nationwide 45 years old or younger by American Lawyer (2007), and one of 10 Non-Resident Indian Achievers Worldwide by Hindustan Times.
He has also been awarded the Town of Salem, Massachusetts Prize (2007); the ACLU Foundation’s Roger Baldwin Award (2007), and the 2004 National Law Journal pro bono award for his work.
Nancy Perkins - Nancy Perkins has a diverse international practice, including arbitration and trade litigation, regulatory counseling, and legislative work. She has litigated disputes before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID") and the GATT/World Trade Organization ("WTO"), including the first case ever brought under the WTO dispute settlement system. She also has worked on antidumping and countervailing duty cases, proceedings under the Generalized System of Preferences, and matters involving Sections 201 and 301 of the U.S. trade laws. She has assisted several foreign governments in the negotiation of treaty provisions, and has counseled numerous clients with respect to export control and customs regulations, the Exon-Florio statute, FOCI matters, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the NAFTA, and antitrust, tax, and other aspects of foreign direct investment in the United States. Ms. Perkins is the Chair of the International Law Section of the D.C. Bar, Treasurer of the American Society of International Law ("ASIL"), and a member of the Editorial Advisory Committee of International Legal Materials, published by the ASIL. She joined Arnold & Porter in 1988, following a clerkship with the Honorable Eugene H. Nickerson in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She is a member of the Bars of both Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, and is a member of the American Law Institute.
Paul Wolfson - Mr. Wolfson has argued 19 cases in the United States Supreme Court and has also argued before six federal courts of appeals. Before joining the firm, Mr. Wolfson worked for eight years in the Solicitor General's Office, where he received the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for "exemplary representation of the United States before the Supreme Court."
Boumediene v. Bush: Rights of Detainees in the View of the Supreme Court A panel discussion with Paul Wolfson, Jonathan Cohn, and Neal Katyal
Boumediene v. Bush, a set of consolidated cases to be argued before the US Supreme Court on December 5, raises the question of whether detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions. At this program, scheduled for one week after oral arguments before the Court, counsel for the parties and their amici will debate the issues raised in the case and comment on the questions raised by the Justices at the oral argument. The discussion will cover the effect of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purports to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions from the detainees, and whether the detainees are entitled to a hearing on the merits- ASIL
3. Eisentrager is controlling on constitutional habeas.
4. The petitioners in Eisentrager did not have recourse to German law in occupied Germany.
5. Cohn has the stronger legal argument, and wipes the floor with Katyal.
Of course the ASIL pukes would like the Court to rule for Boumedienne. It complicates things, and it means more work for IL-types, litigating just exactly what is required by Art. 5 tribunals in expanded habeas proceedings in federal court. Further, petitioners make a lot of hay about the arbitrary territoriality of Guantamano as regards constitutional habeas. This is disingenuous, considering that before Guantanamo, captured enemy aliens were simply held at such places as Bagram air base - where ostensibly, constitutional habeas would not extend, given Neal's 'limited' position. Why should the scope of territorial jurisdiction be any less arbitrary then? For purposes of con. habeas, Bagram would just be as unreachable a black hole as Guantanamo. What then?
One suspects that petitoners' incremental strategy would be to go after that too, which makes Jonathan's point all the more trenchant.