Arthur Raymond Randolph

From dKosopedia

Category: Federal Judges

Circuit Judge, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

• Law and Economics Center seminar attendence: 1998 (Basic Economics Institute for Federal Judges); 1999

Affiliations

• George Mason University School of Law
• Law and Economics Center

Cases

• DKT International Inc. vs. U.S. Agency for International Development
  • Judge: U.S. can deny funds to AIDS group
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/aids_funding;_ylt=AsyqSv.umE5xEjK_sX5rHm.yFz4D
  • "The act does not compel DKT to advocate the government's position on prostitution and sex trafficking; it requires only that if DKT wishes to receive funds it must communicate the message the government chooses to fund,"
    
• In February of 2007 ruled: "Guantanamo Bay inmates cannot challenge their detention in US courts".
  • Meanwhile, detainee cases found their way to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where Circuit Judge A. RAYMOND RANDOLPH, writing the majority opinion, concluded that the MCA had effectively revoked all statutory authority for hearing detainee cases. The majority further expressly rejected every premise that habeas was otherwise applicable to the detainees. He concluded: "Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases.", and ordered the dismissal of all detainee cases. [Opinion: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5062b.pdf ]
    
  • In dissent, Circuit Judge JUDITH W. ROGERS disagreed that habeas was unavailable to the detainees, explaining that the suspension clause was more appropriately viewed as a general limitation on the power of government, rather than as an individual right. She agreed that MCA purported to withdraw a right (of habeas) but that it "does so in a manner that offends the constitutional constraint on suspension."
    
  • The majority opinion appears to leave no means for a foreign national held abroad by the US to complain concerning, for example, torture by the US, and also calls into doubt whether US citizens held abroad by the US government have any right of habeas. Alternatively, the dissenting view appears to offer that, subject to exigency or reasonable laws of administration, all persons held by the US would have some manner of the right.