rejected the petitioner’s argument that the “Due Process Clause includes a ‘[fjreedom from unlawful transfer’ that is ‘protected wherever the government seizes a citizen.’ ” Munaf, 128 S.Ct. at 2222 (citation omitted). The Court noted its disagreement with this assertion, observing that “[n]ot only have we long recognized the principle that a nation state reigns sovereign within its own territory, we have twice applied that principle to reject claims that the Constitution precludes the Executive from transferring a prisoner to a foreign country for prosecution in an allegedly unconstitutional trial.” Id. Because the Supreme Court ruled on this precise issue, this court is precluded from reconsidering this claim. See Role Models Am., Inc. v. Geren, 514 F.3d 1308, 1311 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (citing Briggs v. Pa. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304,
recognizing other state courts have declined to answer certified questions that would not be determinative of the action that were based on conflicting facts or that had already been decided by the state appellate court holding that representation issues are matters relegated to the board representation issues may not be decided by contract and thus may not be decided by an arbitrator holding that courts are precluded from reconsidering issues that have already been decided in the same case holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court