SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Justices will not hear Padilla appeal WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will not reinstate a lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other government officials for the imprisonment of a man declared an "enemy combatant." The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Jose Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron. Padilla wanted to sue former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former prison commander Catherine T. Hanft and several other officials. But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January that Congress, not the court system, has jurisdiction over military detention cases. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was eventually convicted of supporting terrorism in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya and is serving a 17-year sentence in a federal prison in Colorado. New Gitmo appeals turned down By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take a new look at the rights of foreign prisoners held for the past decade at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. Four years after pronouncing that detainees who face no charges have a right to challenge their ongoing confinement, the justices rejected appeals arguing that the federal appeals court in Washington has largely ignored the high court's command. The appeals court has not ordered the release of any detainee and has reversed several lower court release orders. In addition, some appellate judges have been unusually critical of the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush. There are 169 foreigners remaining at Guantanamo, including the five men who are facing military trials for their roles in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the U.S. The justices offered no comment on their orders Monday in appeals from seven detainees. Lawyers for the detainees criticized the court for refusing to take up the appeals. "By refusing to hear these cases, and any Guantánamo cases since its 2008 Boumediene decision, the court abandons the promise of its own ruling guaranteeing detainees a constitutional right to meaningful review of the legality of their detention," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. "Today's decision leaves the fate of detainees in the hands of a hostile D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has erected innumerable, unjustified legal obstacles that have made it practically impossible for a detainee to win a habeas case in the trial courts. " The rejected appeals included two detainees from Yemen who won their cases at the trial court level only to have their hopes for release dashed by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The appeals court threw out the release for Adnan Latif, ruling that the district judge in Latif's case did not give enough weight to government intelligence reports that Latif probably was seeking military training in an al-Qaida camp. Latif was captured near the Afghan-Pakistani border in late 2001. U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy had found that the government had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Yemeni man was part of al-Qaida or an associated force. Latif has been at Guantanamo since 2002. Appellate judges also overturned an order to release Hussain Salem Mohammad Almerfedi. In the Almerfedi case, the appeals court said that circumstantial evidence of terrorist ties can be enough to keep a prisoner. Government attorneys argued that Almerfedi stayed at an al Qaida-affiliated guesthouse based on the testimony of another Guantanamo detainee. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman found the testimony unreliable and ordered Almerfedi released. The circumstances of Almerfedi's capture have not been clearly explained. He was apprehended in Tehran, Iran, after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Iranian officials turned him over to Afghan authorities in March 2002 in a prisoner exchange. In May 2003, U.S. forces moved him to Guantanamo Bay, where he has remained since. Court won't get back into firefighter disputes WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has decided not to get involved again in fire departments' hiring and promotion disputes. The high court on Monday turned away appeals involving departments in New Haven, Conn. and New Jersey's Hudson County. Justices ruled in 2010 that New Haven violated white firefighters' civil rights by throwing out an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain. The court on Monday refused to stop a lawsuit against the city from African American firefighters who say that exam was unfair. The case now goes back to trial court. The court also refused to hear an appeal from North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, which was sued over its requirement that prospective firefighters live in one of five Hudson County towns. Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument again WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief. Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit. The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers allege that Obama, whose father was Kenyan, was born in that African country, rather than in Hawaii. They claim his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery. Hawaii officials have repeatedly verified Obama's citizenship. Keyes and Drake ran against Obama on the American Independent Party ticket and Robinson serves as the party's chairman. Judges can't decide draft complaint WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says federal employees cannot go to trial judges to complain about their firing for not signing up for the U.S. draft. The high court ruled Monday that the Civil Service Reform Act took U.S. district courts' jurisdiction away from from judging these types of claims. Several men lost their jobs in the executive branch for not signing up for Selective Service between the ages of 18 and 26. They sued, but at least two federal appeals courts ruled that they couldn't bring lawsuits straight to court because lawmakers had stripped trial judges of their jurisdiction. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a 6-3 decision saying the Merit Selection Protection Board must hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented. Published: Wed, Jun 13, 2012