Further reading: here and here. The second is especially useful to underline how overbroad the 4th Circuit truly is.
Jose Padilla won in the lower courts the first time around, but the Supreme Court held that he sued the wrong person. As discussed by Justice Stevens, this was blatant formalism, technicalty (as is often the case) used to deprive liberty in a particularly egregious situation. Even worse, Justice Scalia -- who demanded that an American citizen seized on the battlefield required a court hearing and civil process -- joined, even though his Hamdi opinion clearly would have applied with added force to Padilla. This means five justices on the merits was on his side, all of them still on the Court btw.
On the second go around, Padilla won on the district court level in a well reasoned opinion that properly respected liberty as well as not reading the 9/01 authorization of force as if it was a "blank check" that applied to people picked up on our soil thousands of miles from a battlefield. The appellate court overruled without dissent in a forthright opinion that basically was written as if everything was crystal clear. But, this is why the administration forum shopped and chose to put him in the baliwick of the Fourth Circuit.
[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
But, Hamdi noted this is not a "blank check," and specifically limited itself to the battlefield captures. Some blame goes to Congress ... it clearly could have dealt with this situation and made it clear this did not apply to Padilla, but they did not. So, we are left with the courts to protect constitutional rights. Of course, the courts generally (until now) pointed the government in the right direction, though the Supreme Court did not close the deal. They punted, but since the majority knew where this case was going, one wonders if this is not what was intended all along.
Marty Lederman, who kinda used to do this sort of thing for a living (member of the OLC), discusses the ruling here. As emphasized by the comments in his first piece, besides the guy who sounds like he is a member of the administration trying to get Gonzalez's old job, the opinion was in no way compelled by precedent. It was complicated by Padilla apparently stipulating that he was an "enemy combatant" for the purposes of the case. The district court ruling only had "facts" respecting his capture, which are not incriminating in the least.
But, though this does narrow the ruling, it doesn't justify it. As Lederman notes, it doesn't justify his capture to begin with, and if made, the admissions were made under duress. Thus, you need a hearing. Second, the government is accusing him of treason. This is a civil crime, spelled out in Art. III, and warrants criminal process. Third, if he is an "enemy combatant," the President on his say-so should not have the right to so determine. The stipulation here does not change matters, no matter why it was set forth. Finally, Padilla was held as a material witness, criminal, and whatever ... so let's cut the crap.
The opinion noted that the administration (using the current rationale) could hold Padilla to prevent him from going back to Afghanistan. And, since he is an enemy combatant (the hearing regarding this might be forthcoming, according to the NYT* ... no rush), he could be held for this reason. And, the non-blank blank check gave the authority. Sure. No it didn't, and there was other ways to hold him ... some likely challengeable on other grounds, but a lot better than this. And, if they didn't work? Well, at least try them first! The district court says this using better wording, since he has law clerks and all.
Oh, and liberty brings a bit of risk. Just ask Iraqi citizens. Ha.
---
* It quotes a lawyer for other detainees saying the opinion on these facts are "fair." He's wrong, but his halfway respect for liberty has been shown in the past.