Hedges v. Obama et al
| Christopher Hedges |
| Barak Obama and Leon Panetta |
| 1:2012cv00331 |
| January 13, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Katherine B. Forrest |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
61
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth on this Opinion and Order, this Court permanently enjoins enforcement of § 1021(b)(2) in any manner, as to any person. The Court invites Congress to examine whether there are amendments that might cu re the statutes deficiencies, or whether, in light of existing authorization and existing criminal statutes, § 1021 is needed at all.This Court has stated its position, as directly presented to it by the Government, that the AUMF and § 1021 (b)(2) are not the same; they are not co-extensive. Military detention based on allegations of substantially supporting or directly supporting the Taliban, al-Qaeda or associated forces, is not encompassed within the AUMF and is enjoined by this Order regarding § 1021(b)(2). No detention based upon § 1021(b)(2) can occur.The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this action. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 9/12/2012) (jp)
|
|
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION & ORDER # re: 37 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 36 Memorandum & Opinion. Accordingly, court decisions, such as this Court's May 16 Order, enjoining enforcement of overly broad or vague statutes may apply generally--th ey need not be limited only to the parties to the action, and as further set forth in this document. In sum, although it is certainly true as a general proposition that "injunctive relief should be narrowly tailored to fit specific legal violat ions," Waldman Publishing Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 785 (2d Cir. 1994) (Lanham Act claim), and "should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs." This order should eliminate any doubt as to the 5/16 Order's scope. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 6/6/2012) (cd)
|
|
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order enjoing the operation of the Homeland Battlefield provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act. filed by Christopher Hedges, 31 FIRST MOTION to File Amicus Brief. file d by Constitution Party National Committee, U.S. Justice Foundation, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Dick Black, Center for Media and Democracy, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fu nd, Tenth Amendment Center, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Jerome Aumente, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, Western Center for Journalism, Downsize DC Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Border Control, Chuck Baldwin, Downsi zeDC.org, Inc., Bob Marshall.For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED; enforcement of § 1021 of the NDAA is preliminarily enjoined pending further order of this Court or amendments to the statute rendering this Opinion & Order moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion for preliminary injunction and the motion to file amicus brief at Docket Nos. 3 and 31. (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 5/16/2012) (pl)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
