This Note argues that, despite the concern that the use of lawfare threatens American national-security interests, Padilla v. Yoo was decided correctly, both in its legal reasoning and in the appropriateness of the Judiciary’s intervention in a domestic question of constitutional rights. Part II examines Padilla’s capture and detention, as well as the development of the torture memos. Part III discusses the constitutional violations alleged in Padilla. Part IV suggests that, despite the use of lawfare, the Judiciary properly adjudicated a domestic-affairs issue and acted within its authority in not deferring to the coordinate branches of government. Part V analyzes the trial court’s reasoning in denying Yoo’s qualified-immunity defense. Finally, Part VI summarizes the balance government lawyers seek to achieve and the integral role of the Judiciary in that process.
Joseph Marchesano, Where Lawfare Meets Lawsuit in the Case of Padilla v. Yoo, 34 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 1575 (2011).