http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/president-obama-rides-to-the-defense-of-john-yoo.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:44:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/president-obama-rides-to-the-defense-of-john-yoo.html/comment-page-1#comment-66931 The Dude Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:32:18 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22796#comment-66931 Does anyone know when the 9th Circuit will hear this case, and when we can expect a decision? Thanks. Does anyone know when the 9th Circuit will hear this case, and when we can expect a decision? Thanks.

]]> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/president-obama-rides-to-the-defense-of-john-yoo.html/comment-page-1#comment-66555 Weekly Web Watch 11/30/09 – 12/6/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:12:59 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22796#comment-66555 [...] Justice Department filed a brief in Padilla v. Yoo, arguing that the Ninth Circuit should not recognize a Bivens action against [...] [...] Justice Department filed a brief in Padilla v. Yoo, arguing that the Ninth Circuit should not recognize a Bivens action against [...]

]]> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/president-obama-rides-to-the-defense-of-john-yoo.html/comment-page-1#comment-66522 The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » DoJ’s Defense of Yoo Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:14:08 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22796#comment-66522 [...] Dave Hoffman notes that the Justice Department has filed an interesting amicus brief in Padilla v. Yoo arguing against the availabiltiy of a Bivens action in the national security context.  Here’s a brief excerpt: The threshold question presented by this case is whether a court should recognize a federal common-law damage action addressing the decisionmaking process within the Executive Branch about whether the military should detain and how it should treat those deemed to be enemies during an armed conflict. As we explain below, this context, which directly implicates war powers and matters of national security, presents compelling “special factors” that strongly counsel against judicial creation of such a money-damage remedy, in the absence of congressional action. The Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have consistently refused to extend Bivens remedies to new contexts. Where there are special considerations or sensitivities raised by a particular context, the courts recognize that it is appropriate for the courts to defer to Congress and wait for it to enact a private damage action if it so chooses. That course is clearly appropriate here. [...] [...] Dave Hoffman notes that the Justice Department has filed an interesting amicus brief in Padilla v. Yoo arguing against the availabiltiy of a Bivens action in the national security context.  Here’s a brief excerpt: The threshold question presented by this case is whether a court should recognize a federal common-law damage action addressing the decisionmaking process within the Executive Branch about whether the military should detain and how it should treat those deemed to be enemies during an armed conflict. As we explain below, this context, which directly implicates war powers and matters of national security, presents compelling “special factors” that strongly counsel against judicial creation of such a money-damage remedy, in the absence of congressional action. The Supreme Court and the courts of appeals have consistently refused to extend Bivens remedies to new contexts. Where there are special considerations or sensitivities raised by a particular context, the courts recognize that it is appropriate for the courts to defer to Congress and wait for it to enact a private damage action if it so chooses. That course is clearly appropriate here. [...]

]]>