The prisoners from the largely Muslim Uighur region, Western China, were taken prisoner in Afghanistan or Pakistan after Sept. 11 attacks. You have chosen by the Government, not a threat to the United States, and Justice Breyer wrote that all parties agree, that their detention "without legitimate reason." The prisoners want to be returned to China, where they are terrorists and fear torture or execution.
The question in the case of judge Breyer wrote, is whether judge released prisoners here on the Government objection can order.
The Supreme Court agreed to decide this question, in 2009, but it last year after the Government the Court said he had resettlement offers of Palau, an island nation in the Pacific Ocean, and a second unidentified country dismissed the previous case.
Last year zurückzusendenden an unsigned decision the Supreme Court of the case to the lower courts for further proceedings in the light of these developments. "No court in this case in terms of the new facts has chosen," said the decision, "and we are opposed to the first".
The United States Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which against the prisoners for the first time to firmly had, it did again. In a concurring opinion in this decision from the judge Breyer cited on Monday, wrote judge Judith W. Rogers, that the prisoners had not claimed, that she would be subject to the abuse she had accepted the resettlement, and as the Government the solution name considered.
Judge Breyer pointed out that the Government remained ready, in his words, and "continue to work, find other options for resettlement." to "speak" again to the question with the Government of Palau
In the light of all this, judge Breyer wrote, "I see no Government imposed obstacle for the petitioners timely release and appropriate resettlement." But he added, that the prisoners free, back to court "circumstances should materially change."
Judge Breyer statement joined Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan was disqualified from the case because she had worked on it as Solicitor General.
Their absence a decision for the prisoners made unlikely the Court of Justice had agreed the case Kiyemba, v. Obama, no. 10-775, hear, and the more liberal judges can have taken into account in the vote not to hear.
No action Monday took up the judge Virginia's unusual request that your challenge of the recent health care law are heard by the Supreme Court, before a Court of appeal has to weigh a chance. The case is Virginia v. Sebelius, no. 10-1014.
没有评论:
发表评论