5 votes, four in the plurality and one in the dissent

[Volokh, Eugene]

	As I read the opinions in Padilla, there were five votes -- the
plurality's and Justice Thomas's -- for the proposition that the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force was the sort of
Congressional action that lets the government detain at least some
citizens notwithstanding 18 USC 4001(a).  What's the formal legal rule
as to whether this yields a "holding" by the Court on the question?

	Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing, 486 U.S. 750, 764 n.9
(1988), says that "when no single rationale commands a majority, 'the
holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those
Members who concurred in the judgmen[t] on the narrowest grounds,'"
citing Marks v. United States.  Does that mean that there is no holding
at all as to 18 USC 4001(a) and the Authorization, since Justice Thomas
was dissenting, rather than concurring?  Are there other precedents that
I'm missing?  I'd love to hear others' views on this.  (I realize that
the legal doctrine may not completely determine -- or perhaps even much
influence -- the practical understanding of this particular case, but
I'd like to know what that doctrine is.)  Thanks in advance,

	Eugene