Your Supreme Court isn't all that friendly to you, Mr. Bush

What does the Supreme Court's decision to not hear Jose Padilla's appeal mean?

David Savage, in the LA Times:

The Supreme Court today decided against hearing the celebrated case of American-born "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, but only because the Bush administration had already decided it would no longer hold him in military custody. It leaves unresolved the question of whether the president as commander in chief has the power to arrest and hold without trial Americans whom he believes are working for the enemy.

But the New York Times points out that the outcome is full of complications.

....There were hints of an internal struggle among the justices. For one thing, several justices took the somewhat unusual step of issuing opinions related to the court's order not to take a case. More commonly, when refusing to take a case, the court simply issues an order without comment. The three justices who said the Supreme Court should have taken the case were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

And this is regarded as a signal to the Administration that it may not step over the line.

Even in voting not to hear the case, at least for now, Justice Kennedy wrote, for himself, the chief justice and Justice Stevens, "In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he was first detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again." "In the court of its supervision over Padilla's custody and trial, the district court will be obliged to afford him the protection, including the right to a speedy trial, guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants," Justice Kennedy wrote on behalf of himself and his two colleagues. And even though Justice Stevens found today that the Padilla case need not be considered now, he declared at an earlier stage in the case that "at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society."

And Forbes points to Chief Justice Roberts' concerns and what could be seen as a subtle warning to the Bush administration.

A divided Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Bush administration's wartime detention powers, rejecting an appeal from U.S. citizen Jose Padilla who until recently had been held as an enemy combatant without traditional legal rights. Chief Justice John Roberts and two others signaled concerns about the government's handling of Padilla and said they would be watching to ensure he receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants." Three other justices wanted the court to consider immediately whether President Bush overstepped his authority by ordering Padilla's detention.

The best analysis so far comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR.  Audio available this evening.