2.     The President's determination that Padilla is an enemy combatant did not effect a Suspension of the Writ.

Petitioners assert (Amend. Pet. 36-37) that, insofar as the President's order determining that Padilla is an enemy combatant prohibits any habeas challenge to the legality of his detention, that order unconstitutionally suspends the availability of the writ of habeas corpus.  The President's order, however, does not purport to limit the availability of a habeas challenge to the legality of Padilla's detention, and makes no effort to address the subject of habeas relief.  Instead, the order directs the military to take custody of Padilla as an enemy combatant and elaborates the factual conclusions supporting that determination.  See President's Order (June 9, 2002).  The very fact of this habeas proceeding demonstrates that there has been no "Suspension of the Writ."  Amend. Pet. 37.  The amended petition's various legal challenges to Padilla's detention fail on the merits, but they arise through a classic use of the writ to challenge the legal basis for his detention -- just as, for example, the habeas petitioners in Quirin employed the writ to raise similar, and similarly unavailing, legal claims.