Filed On: April 23, 2013 Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 11-1324 September Term, 2012
CMCR-09-001
Filed On: April 23, 2013
Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul,
Petitioner
v.
United States of America,
Respondent
BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Griffith,
and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of respondent’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response
thereto, and the vote in favor of the petition by a majority of the judges eligible to
participate, it is
ORDERED that the petition be granted. This case will be reheard by the court
sitting en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the court's order filed on January 25, 2013, be
vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument before the en banc court be heard
Monday, September 30, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs electronically, the parties
file 25 paper copies each of the briefs and the appendix, in accordance with the
following schedule:
Brief for Petitioner Bahlul May 24, 2013
Appendix May 24, 2013
Amicus Curiae Brief in
Support of Petitioner (if any) June 10, 2013

-- 1 of 2 --

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 11-1324 September Term, 2012
Brief for Respondent United States July 10, 2013
Amicus Curiae Brief in
Support of Respondent (if any) July 25, 2013
Reply Brief for Petitioner Bahlul August 8, 2013
It is
FURTHER ORDERED that in addition to the issues the parties raise in their en
banc petition and opposition thereto, the parties are requested in their briefs to
specifically address and provide their positions on these questions:
(1) For purposes of considering whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006
may permissibly proscribe pre-2006 conduct that was not a war crime
triable by military commission under 10 U.S.C. § 821 before 2006, does
the Ex Post Facto Clause apply in cases involving detainees at
Guantanamo?
(2) Assuming arguendo that, as Hamdan II concluded, the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 does not proscribe pre-2006 conduct that was
not a war crime triable by military commission under 10 U.S.C. § 821
before 2006, and that 10 U.S.C. § 821 permits trial by military commission
only for war crimes that were proscribed under the international law of war
at the time of the offense, was conspiracy a violation of the international
law of war at the time of Bahlul's offense?
Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of argument, the court will
grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons.
The briefs and appendix must contain the date that the case is scheduled for oral
argument at the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8).
A separate order will issue regarding allocation of oral argument time.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk
Page 2

-- 2 of 2 --