Freedom from Guantanamo: How the Court Curtailed Prerogative Powers and increased Civil Liberties for Detainees

Presenter: Lindsay Thane (Political Science)

Mentor: Dan Tichenor

Facilitator: Nedzer Erilus

During the post 9/11 era the President made claims to expansive Commander-in-Chief Powers, yet the United States’ functioning as a constitutional democracy necessitates a sharing of power among all three branches. Executive claims to prerogative powers were scrutinized by the Court for disregarding civil liberties, most noticeably those of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay. The Court’s unprecedented step to place checks on Executive power led to this inquiry of whether the Court’s post 9/11 decisions curtailed unilateral Executive policy making and safeguarded the civil liberties afforded to detainees at Guantánamo Bay? This study looked at the Court’s decisions in the terror cases and analyzed their effect on Executive policies, as well as Congress’ activeness in shaping detainee policy and placing checks on the Bush Administration’s prerogative powers. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has deferred to the President in times of war; however, following 9/11 the Court took an active role in placing limits on the President’s unilateral powers. The Court’s decisions in these cases were effective in restraining Executive power, but they only somewhat protected and restored the detainees’ civil liberties. The protection of certain individual rights has been followed by the curtailment of others. Currently, the Obama Administration is facing criticism for the indefinite detention of detainees, and this study provides a framework which outlines how civil liberties can again begin to be restored.