So why did Michael Luttig resign?

Luttig's own resignation letter refers to "sheer serendipity". It was "a particular privilege to serve on the court" after 9/11. Since then, "the court has been asked to address some of the most complex and far-reaching legal issues of our day". Indeed, Luttig says, he has "loved every single aspect and every single moment of [his] service".

But the Boeing offer "is a singular opportunity". Boeing itself is "an American icon". Boeing's new CEO, James McNerney, "is one of the most impressive business leaders in America," its management team "one of the most talented in the country". Plus, Boeing plays a "central role" in "the Nation's defense and security," a role "distinctively imbued with the public trust". Being at Boeing will "permit" Luttig "to continue in a form of service to the country". Indeed, "Boeing may well be the only company in America for which [he] would have ever considered leaving the court".

Resigning from the federal bench and taking the job with Boeing "is the right decision for [him] at this time, and, most importantly, for [his] family, "to whom [he owes his] highest obligation". After all, his two children will soon be going off to college.

There's much to pick apart here.

Luttig's reverence for Boeing seems excessive. Who is he trying to convince of Boeing's greatness? Himself? His family? His fellow judges? President Bush? Boeing's management team? Boeing's shareholders?

Does he really owe his "highest obligation" to his family? What about his country? His god? The law? I'll leave that to his conscience. If indeed his "highest obligation" is to his family, that's fine, but, once more, this seems excessive. Why mention, after all, that his children will soon be "college age"? Doesn't a parent face less obligation once his or her children go off to college? Or is he more worried about the cost of sending two children to college? He'll be making much more money at Boeing than on the federal bench, after all. If this is about money, at least in part, that's fine, too. But then he obviously has a personal interest in reaching out to shareholders and trying to boost Boeing's stock.

This is all personal for Luttig and, cynicism aside, the move to Boeing is likely a great opportunity for him. But let's move on to another point: Has Luttig honestly "loved every single aspect and every single moment of [his] service"? And does he honestly "wish [Bush] every success during the remainder of [his] Administration"?

Luttig is a conservative and likely a Republican. His keen interest in post-9/11 national security indicates a certain fondness for Bush's conduct of the war on terror, both at home and abroad. And yet -- and here we get to the heart of this post -- could it be that Luttig's resignation has something to do with the Bush Administration's handling of the Jose Padilla case? The Wall Street Journal thinks so.

Generally speaking, Luttig was on Bush's side early on in the war on terror: "After 9/11, Judge Luttig agreed in several cases with the government's placement of the line between national security and civil liberties." For example: "He agreed that U.S.-born Yaser Hamdi, captured in Afghanistan, could be held as an enemy combatant." Last year he even agreed that could be held "without charge in a military brig". Indefinitely. "The decision" -- which you can find here -- "validated President Bush's claim that he could set aside... Padilla's constitutional rights in the name of national security." Padilla "was arrested in May 2002 when he arrived at [Chicago's] O'Hare International Airport from Pakistan". Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that he was involved in "an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive 'dirty bomb,'" and he was held as an enemy combatant. Whatever the evidence, Luttig "assumed the government had a compelling reason to consider the suspect an extraordinary threat".

Padilla's detention was ruled "illegal" by two courts before the case went to Luttig. Ultimately, "Luttig delivered a coup: a unanimous opinion, written by himself, declaring that the president's powers to detain those he considered enemy combatants apply anywhere in the world, including the U.S." This was a far-reaching validation of Bush's conduct of the war on terror, not to mention of executive power generally.

But then -- things changed. In November of last year, the [A]dministration suddenly announced that it didn't consider... Padilla an enemy combatant any more and would charge him in a regular federal court". No more indefinite detention in a military brig as an enemy combatant. Luttig was not amused:

A person familiar with the judge's thinking says it's evident he felt the government had pulled "the carpet out from under him." In an interview yesterday, Judge Luttig said, "I thought that it was appropriate that the Supreme Court would have the final review of the case."

Attorney General Gonzales offered no explanation for the move, but critics accused the government of gaming the court system. By making the Supreme Court appeal moot, the government could avoid a possible reversal at the nation's highest court while preserving the favorable Fourth Circuit ruling.

Instead of granting what the government considered a pro forma request to transfer Mr. Padilla to civilian custody, Judge Luttig ordered the parties to submit arguments over the question. On Dec. 21, Judge Luttig delivered a judicial bombshell: a carefully worded order refusing to move Mr. Padilla until the Supreme Court decided what to do. The order all but accused the Bush administration of misconduct.

"The government's abrupt change in course" appeared designed "to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court," Judge Luttig wrote. The government's actions suggested that "Padilla may have been held for these years... by mistake" and, even worse, that the government's legal positions "can, in the end, yield to expediency." Such tactics, Judge Luttig warned, could exact a "substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts."

Now the Bush Administration wasn't amused:

A furious Bush [A]dministration asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Fourth Circuit. The ruling "second guesses and usurps both the president's commander-in-chief authority and the Executive's prosecutorial discretion in a manner inconsistent with bedrock principles of separation of powers," Mr. Clement, the solicitor general, wrote.

The Supreme Court agreed to let Mr. Padilla move -- he is now in a Miami jail -- but the administration's strategy of funneling war-powers cases to the Fourth Circuit was in tatters...

People familiar with Judge Luttig's thinking say he knew his condemnation of the administration would bring a personal cost but he believes that judges must apply the law regardless of its political implications. These people say he has been disillusioned by the encroachment of politics on the judiciary -- and the view that judges are on "our team" or "their team."

People close to the Bush administration see it differently. They dismiss Judge Luttig's opinion as a judicial tantrum, noting that it came after he was passed over three times for a Supreme Court position. President Bush nominated Judge Roberts, Harriet Miers (who withdrew) and Judge Samuel Alito.

So why did Michael Luttig resign? Was there "a breakdown of trust" between Luttig and Bush? In other words, had one of Bush's staunchest allies and defenders, a "star" of the conservative judiciary, finally had enough? Did he finally see, in the Padilla case, just what Bush and the war on terror are all about? It would seem that this is a very likely possibility, but it's not what the White House spin machine wants you to believe. After all, the White House is already swift-boating Luttig. As Jason Zengerle puts it at The Plank, the latest White House spin -- spun by "some in the Bush [A]dministration" -- is that Luttig resigned "because of sour grapes over his not being picked for the Supreme Court".

There may be a number of different reasons for Luttig's resignation. Maybe he really does like Boeing, maybe he really thinks this is a great opportunity for his family, maybe he really is upset that Bush tapped Roberts, Miers, and Alito for the Supreme Court, and maybe the "clash" with Bush really did persuade him that it was time to go.

What matters here, beyond Luttig's personal life and Boeing's fortunes, is that Luttig of all judges clamped down on one of the gross excesses of Bush's conduct of the war on terror. Luttig was willing to grant Bush an enormous amount of latitude, but, in the Padilla case, Bush simply went too far even for Luttig. That says something.

Just as it says something that the White House wants nothing to do with Luttig's blatant dissent. There doesn't yet seem to be formal campaign to smear Luttig, but the smearing has begun nonetheless. And such smearing, as we know so well by now, is as typical of this White House as Bush's seemingly limitless attempts to expand presidential power, undo the checks and balances that lie at the foundation of American governance, and wage a nebulous war on terror by trampling all over the Constitution.

Luttig is off to Boeing, a dissenter departed, but Bush's misconduct goes on.