Alright, I'm reading through the opinion and summarizing as quickly as I can. So far it seems that we've gotten everything we could ask for.
1.) The suspension clause is in full effect at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Congress did not have the Constitutional authority to strip the detainees' Habeas rights through the DTA (Detainee Treatment Act).
Kennedy later elaborates that there cannot even be "prudential barriers" to Habeas review. This is huge.
2.) Rejects the principle that de jure sovereignty is limited by territorial borders. "Extraterritorial" review is not prohibited by Eistentrager. Eisentrager was decided on practicalities of trial and is not meant to proscribe a "formalistic test."
3.) "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is." !!!
THEREFORE: The "Congress must act in accordance with the Suspension Clause's requirements" for detainees in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. I repeat, Habeas can only be abrogated in military commissions if Habeas review is not possible.
This is all we could have asked for regarding habeas review. Truly great, but it gets even better.
The D.C. Circuit Court did not decide the substantive question of Boumediene; whether the CSRTs (Combatant Status Review Tribunals) were an "adequate substitute" for Habeas protection. The D.C. Circuits review was cut off by the habeas decision; because they found in favor of the Government, they did not need to address whether the system of Military Commissions was an adequate substitute.
Traditionally in situations such as this the Court would send the petition back to the lower Circuit Court to be decided "on the issues." However, in this case the Court saw it necessary to forgo this and decide the case on its merits! This was completely unexpected and more than we could have possibly hoped for.
Justice Kennedy eviscerates the Government's claim that the CSRT process provides an adequate substitute for Habeas. He cites a litany of complaints,
At the CSRT stage the detainee has limited means to find or present evidence to challenge the Government’s case, does not have the assistance of counsel, and may not be aware of the most critical allegations that the Government relied upon to order his detention. His opportunity to confront witnesses is likely to be more theoretical than real, given that there are no limits on the admission of hearsay..
Kennedy turns the traditional interpretation of Ex Parte Quirin on its head to support the assertion that military commissions must have an adequate procedure for the finding of facts and correction of errors.
Accordingly, for the habeas writ, or its substitute, to function as an effective and meaningful remedy in this context, the court conducting the collateral proceeding must have some ability to correct any errors, to assess the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence, and to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding.
Justice Kennedy asserts categorically that the CSRT process fails to meet this standard. Requiring detainees to go through an extended DTA review (which could take years) after six years is deemed unacceptable.
476 F. 3d 981, reversed and remanded.
Justice Souter writes a concurring opinion dedicated to personally attacking Justice Scalia and the other dissenting Justices. I would give his two page concurrence a read, it's pretty fiery:
Justice Scalia dismisses the statement as dictum, but if dictum it was, it was dictum well considered, and it stated the view of five Members of this Court on the historical scope of the writ.