Dec. 5 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration's handling of Guantanamo Bay inmates divided the U.S. Supreme Court, as the justices clashed over a law that bars the suspected terrorists from challenging their detention in federal court.

In an argument that ran 20 minutes beyond its allotted hour, the justices debated whether the 2006 statute infringed on federal courts' constitutional power to consider so-called habeas corpus petitions from the inmates. Many of the prisoners have been held for almost six years.

The court gave no clear indication how it will rule. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been the court's swing vote on terrorism cases, directed questions at both sides. Other justices voiced impatience with the administration and its contention that military hearings, coupled with limited judicial review, are an adequate substitute for habeas corpus rights.

``They say they have been unlawfully detained for six years,'' Justice John Paul Stevens said. ``And isn't that delay relevant to the question of whether they have been provided such a wonderful set of procedures?''

The case gives the court a chance to assert a powerful wartime role for the judiciary -- one that even Congress and the president together can't take away. The outcome will help determine the fate of the 300 inmates at Guantanamo's Camp Delta, set up in 2002 to detain accused al-Qaeda fighters captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush Argument

President George W. Bush's lawyers contend that the Constitution and its guarantee of habeas rights don't cover enemy prisoners held outside the country, in this case on Cuban territory that the U.S. occupies under a 1903 lease. Habeas corpus is a legal device that dates back to 14th century England and lets inmates claim they are being wrongfully held.

Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts voiced the strongest support for the administration. Scalia repeatedly asked the inmates' lawyer, Seth Waxman, to point to a ``single case'' in American or English history in which a court granted a habeas petition filed by a foreigner who wasn't on sovereign U.S. or English territory.

``Just give me one case,'' Scalia said. ``There's not a single one in all of this lengthy history.''

In 2004 the court ruled 6-3 that a federal statute let Guantanamo inmates file habeas petitions. Kennedy, who joined the majority, wrote that Guantanamo ``is in every practical respect a United States territory.''

Habeas Rights

Congress responded with two laws that explicitly barred courts from considering Guantanamo petitions. The question now is whether the inmates have constitutional habeas rights that Congress can't take away without providing an adequate substitute.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter joined Stevens in suggesting that the Guantanamo inmates did have habeas rights.

``I think Justice Kennedy said it most clearly when he said, in every practical respect, Guantanamo Bay is U.S. territory,'' Ginsburg said to Waxman. ``And whatever Congress recently passed, they can't, as you point out, change the terms of the lease.''

Kennedy indicated he was standing by his views in the 2004 case. He interjected a wisecrack during a discussion of whether Cuban courts had authority over any activity at the base.

``You're not heartened by the prospect that the detainees could apply to the Cuban courts, which would then hand process to the commanding general at Guantanamo?'' Kennedy asked Waxman.

2005 Procedures

At the same time, Kennedy asked if the procedures laid out in the 2005 law would give inmates an adequate chance to make all their arguments.

Waxman said a different system of military hearings might have proven adequate but that ``the time for experimentation is over.''

The justices are reviewing appeals by 37 inmates, including six Algerian natives seized in Bosnia in 2002 and a larger group of men who were taken into custody in Afghanistan or the bordering areas of Pakistan.

Under Defense Department regulations, inmates appear before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or CSRT, a military panel that decides whether the men are ``enemy combatants'' who should remain in detention. A 2005 law gives inmates only a limited right to appeal that conclusion to a federal court in Washington.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the government, said the court should respect the ``balance'' struck by Congress and the president.

``If this kind of review was provided in 1789 or 1941, it would have been greeted as a remarkable, remarkable liberalization of the writ as it had then been understood,'' Clement argued.

Lawyers for the prisoners say those procedures are a poor substitute for habeas rights. The inmates can't have a lawyer present, are barred from seeing much of the evidence against them and in most circumstances can't call witnesses in their defense.

The cases are Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al-Odah v. United States, 06-1196.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 5, 2007 14:34 EST