Neal Katyal Quotes (17 Quotes)

This is not an ordinary criminal trial. This is an ad hoc trial in which all of the procedures are defined by the president. The public interest is best served by this court . . . . setting some limits.

This is a military commission that is literally unbounded by the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States.

radically extended legal precedents set during conventional wars.

places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States.

He has a basic, almost religious, respect for the individual. At every turn, he just treats his client with such humanity.

It's not that the States will be forced to recognize marriages from Canada in the United States, but they'll be under increasing pressure in any number of circumstances -- child custody and property being the two most obvious -- to recognize those marriages,

The Geneva Conventions were written precisely to make it difficult for political leaders facing political pressure to suspend basic rights and P.O.W. protections. The moment we let a president say he can determine whether someone is a prisoner of war, other countries are going to start doing it back to us.

In the American criminal system, we can have a conspiracy doctrine because we have this unique set of vibrant protections. But when it comes to war-crimes trials, the international consensus is that conspiracy is a no-no. When the U.S. Congress itself defined war crimes in two statutes in 1996 and 1997, it didn't include conspiracy.

Justice (Stephen) Breyer almost never dissents, ... For him to be that strident I think reflects the deep underlying concern about the appearance of political impropriety.

Its decision vests the president with the ability to circumvent the federal courts and time-tested limits on the executive. No decision, by any court, in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has gone this far,

Congress did not intend to strip the federal courts of their power to adjudicate pending cases.

authoritative decision to stop people from rioting in the streets.

Here, the president seeks not merely to detain temporarily but to dispense life imprisonment and death through a judicial system of his own design.

At issue is whether the president can supersede established civilian and military judicial systems. No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people.

Reduced to its essence, the government's argument is that the federal judiciary has no real power to review actions taken by the president in the name of fighting terrorism.

The 'plain' language of the enacted law is most fairly read as not applying to this case, or at the very least is ambiguous.

It is a foundation of this court to test the lawfulness of military tribunals.