Opinio Juris guest blogger Marko Milanovic has posted a fascinating and provocative item on alleged misquotation of sources and apparent “footnote filching” in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. According to Milanovic, the Hamdan majority (1) cited an authority for a proposition that is actually contrary to that which the authority supports; (2) selectively cites relevant authority in a misrepresentative manner; and (3) appears to have taken the relevant citation and quotation from an amicus brief submitted by several law professors. Not being an expert on the relevant materials, I am curious to see how others respond to Milanovic’s accusations.