Three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that weeks-long detentions of innocent people as “material witnesses” violates the Constitution. From the New York Times:

In the decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, was sharply critical of the Bush administration’s practice of holding people it suspected of terrorism without charges, as material witnesses.

And from the decision itself:

We are confident that, in light of the experience of the American colonists with the abuses of the British Crown, the Framers of our Constitution would have disapproved of the arrest, detention, and harsh confinement of a United States citizen as a “material witness” under the circumstances, and for the immediate purpose alleged, in al-Kidd’s complaint. Sadly, however, even now, more than 217 years after the ratification of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain or restrict American citizens for months on end, in sometimes primitive conditions, not because there is evidence that they have committed a crime, but merely because the government wishes to investigate them for possible wrongdoing, or to prevent them from having contact with others in the outside world. We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history.

As a result, John Ashcroft may face personal liability. Interestingly, two of the judges on the panel were appointed by George W. Bush, and the third by Ronald Reagan. It is unlikely these judges are insensitive to the claims of the government. Full text of the decision, al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, is here and it graphically outlines the lack of due process and undue harassment under an organized federal program.

The wheels of justice move slowly, but there are hopeful signs that constitutional sanity is returning.