Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied "the unopposed motion of retired federal jurists for leave to file brief amici curiae in support of petitioners regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006" in the consolidated cases of Bouemediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States. The three judge panel's order was issued without opinion, providing only a parenthetical citation to Advisory Opinion 72 from the Judicial Conference's Committee on Codes of Conduct, which reads in relevatn part:

Judges should insure that the title 'judge' is not used in the courtroom or in papers involved in litigation before them to designate a former judge, unless the designation is necessary to describe accurately a person's status at a time pertinent to the lawsuit.

Judges Sentelle and Randolph supported the order. The third judge on the panel, Judge Rogers, wrote a brief dissent, arguing that the Court traditionally allows the submission of amicus briefs when not opposed by the parties and supported by a sufficient statement of the amici's interest. Advisory Opinion 72 was not controllng, Rogers argued, adding that rejecting the brief could create the appearance of partiality on the part of the court.

A copy of the brief in question is available here.