True, but are we sure about this with Reinhardt? He generally is considered to be a "bully," as well as the most liberal appellate judge in the country, or at least the most activist in his beliefs. His opinion makes clear that he does not HAVE to issue it, since the SC will be taking up the other Guantanamo cases. I clerked on a federal court of appeals and we would almost always have waited when a parallel case is before the SC; anything else is completely wasteful, since you'll probably have to write a new decision when they rule. So besides being totally wrong on merits, the timing of the opinion is strange.
Except that ... Reinhardt's wife is Ramona Ripston, the head of the LA ACLU. Reinhardt says he is issuing the opinion to "help" the SC with its cases -- indicating that he recognizes issuing the opinion is DISCRETIONARY. But won't the ACLU file an amicus brief on behalf of the Guantanamo prisoners? Won't it be able to cite Reinhardt now? If it does, Reinhardt's decision (which is indefensible on the merits) appears to me to better explained as an attempt to influence the SC cases in which his wife has an arguable institutional interest than as an independent resolution of the California case.
Consequently, Reinhardt has an apparent conflict of interest and his actions create the appearance of impropriety, bringing into question the integrity and independence of the judiciary (i.e. a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics). This is grounds for impeachment, but it has to wait until the ACLU files its brief. I realize the impeachment would probably be unsuccessful, and even if successful, the Senate would not convict, but I disagree that he has not made himself potentially eligible for the procedure. And no, I am not Larry Klayman.