Delaying Justice at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba Military commission hearings began last week against five men held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for conspiring in the 9/11 attacks. Other detainees, however, are held without charges and their legal right to challenge their detention remains blocked. Last fall, when the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia ruled 2 to 1 against Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni citizen, Judge David Tatel wrote in dissent that it was "hard to see what is left of the Supreme Court's command" that government must allow prisoners who aren't Americans "meaningful" challenges to detention. The majority, in a grossly unfair decision, said a government report leading to Mr. Latif's detention must be assumed to be accurate under "a presumption of regularity," unless there is "clear evidence to the contrary." The Supreme Court is expected soon to consider a request to review the case. It should promptly reverse the appellate decision, which eviscerates the justices" 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that allowed Guantánamo prisoners to challenge the legality of their detention in federal court through habeas corpus petitions. Now a version of the appeals court ruling with some previously redacted portions shows even more defects in Judge Janice Rogers Brown's majority opinion. In addition to misstatements about rules of evidence, there is inexcusable disregard for critical facts. Mr. Latif, who sustained head injuries in a 1994 car accident in Yemen, went to Pakistan for medical treatment in 2001, and then traveled to Kabul to find a Yemeni man who promised to help him. He was arrested near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and transferred to Guantánamo where he has been held without trial since 2002. The government contends he fought with the Taliban after being recruited by Al Qaeda. Its evidence is an intelligence field report stating Mr. Latif said he had a hand, not a head, injury, according to the now unredacted portions. He said that was a translation error. In treating the report as reliable, Judge Brown gave the government an unfair and almost insurmountable advantage. The trial court rightly found the report unreliable and uncorroborated and found Mr. Latif's story plausible and corroborated by medical records. Instead of accepting the trial court's proper findings, the appeals court created a new, indefensible rule, essentially rejecting the Supreme Court's Boumediene ruling. The appeals court has decided 19 habeas petitions filed by detainees, and has never supported a grant of a habeas petition. In the Latif case and six other detainee cases now up for review, a major question for the justices is whether they will go along with the appellate court's refusal to allow Guantánamo detainees to prevail in habeas cases. Its own authority is on the line.