D.C. circuit cites Duke Law scholars Young and Bradley

September 10, 2010Duke Law News

Sept. 10, 2010 — In a recently published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit cited the work of two Duke Law scholars as the judges engaged in substantial debate as to whether international law is relevant to construing the president's authority in the war on terrorism. The opinion relates to the denial of an en banc rehearing in the case Al-Bihani v. Obama, et al.

The opinions of Judges Brett M. Kavanaugh and Stephen F. Williams cite articles individually written by Curtis Bradley, the Horvitz Professor of Law, and Ernest Young, the Altson & Bird Professor of Law. They also include multiple references to a series of works co-authored by Bradley and Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School.

Judge Williams agreed with Bradley and Goldsmith’s contention that “if the international laws of war ‘can inform the powers that Congress has implicitly granted to the President in the AUMF, they logically can inform the boundaries of such powers.’” Judge Kavanaugh, while relying on both Bradley’s individual work and Bradley’s work with Goldsmith for a variety of other propositions, stated that he did not agree with the proposition endorsed by Judge Williams.

Read the opinion here.
Other News
  • Economic Growth and Development in Africa

    Nelly Wamaitha LLM ’17, an attorney from Kenya, describes herself as a skeptic of foreign aid structures and delivery in Africa. “I don’t think Africa’s problems can be solved with some Herculean effort that Africa does on its own, it’s obviously going to be a cooperative effort,” said Wamaitha, who practiced corporate law in Nairobi and London and studied theology at Oxford University before coming to Duke. “That having been said, the world has really botched up Africa in the past.”

  • Keeping a critical eye on enforcement

    Decisions regarding the enforcement of laws are highly discretionary. The choice of a federal or state agency or attorney general to investigate, charge, litigate, or resolve a specific infraction of a statute or regulation or not gets little public, judicial, or scholarly scrutiny.