Oral arguments were this morning in the Second Circuit on Padilla's habeas petition. Padilla is a United States citizen being held incommunicato and without charges as an "enemy combatant" solely on the basis that the preseident has designated him as such. The government has taken the position there is no judicial review of such a determination beyond whether there is some evidence that he is an enemy combatant. Of course they also contend that an affidavit provided by a DoD official is sufficient. They also don't want him to have access to a lawyer. In addition they forum shopped the case by moving him from New York to South Carolina
Here is the District Court opinion.
Here is the government's brief (pdf)
IHere is a link from the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights that links to their (among others ) amicus briefs
On the forum issue, I have not seen (though I have not read alll the briefs) any one put forth Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75 1807:
But in this case, a tribunal for the trial of the offence, wherever it may have been committed, had been provided by congress; and at the place where the prisoners were seized by the authority of the commander in chief, there existed such a tribunal. It would, too, be extremely dangerous to say, that because the prisoners were apprehended, not by a civil magistrate, but by the military power, there could be given by law a right to try the persons so seized in any place which the general might select, and to which he might direct them to be carried.
This case arose out of the whole Aaron Burr plot.
Update: The Amicus brief (pdf) from a group of retired judges and lawyers does cite Bollman, but not for the proposition I quote it for.
Still can't find Padilla's own brief.