WASHINGTON -LRB- CNN -RRB- -- Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba , have the right to challenge their detention in federal court , the Supreme Court ruled Thursday . A prefabricated court complex has been erected at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba , to try terrorism suspects . The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration 's war on terrorism policies . The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners , some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges . Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures . Writing for the majority , Justice Anthony Kennedy said , `` the laws and Constitution are designed to survive , and remain in force , in extraordinary times . Liberty and security can be reconciled ; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law . '' Kennedy , the court 's swing vote , was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens , David Souter , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer , generally considered the liberal contingent . At issue was the rights of detainees to contest their imprisonment and challenge the rules set up to try them . Watch how the 5-4 ruling is a major blow for the Bush administration '' A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention . It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004 , including Thursday 's ruling . Each time , the justices have ruled against the government 's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers `` enemy combatants . '' Preliminary hearings have begun in Guantanamo for some of the accused . A military panel this month arraigned five suspected senior al Qaeda detainees , including the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , who was transferred to the prison camp in 2006 . The Bush administration has urged the high court not to get involved in the broader appeals , saying the federal judiciary has no authority to hear such matters . Four justices agreed . In a sharp dissent , read in part from the bench , Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority `` warps our Constitution . '' The `` nation will live to regret what the court has done today , '' Scalia said . He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito . President Bush , who is traveling in Europe , said he disagreed with the Guantanamo ruling but promised to abide by it . `` Congress and the administration worked very carefully on a piece of legislation that set the appropriate procedures in place as to how to deal with the detainees , '' he said . `` We 'll study this opinion , and we 'll do so with this in mind to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so that we can safely say , truly say to the American people , ` we are doing everything we can to protect you . ' '' The Pentagon declined to comment , and the Justice Department said it was reviewing the decision and was expected to comment later Thursday . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-California , welcomed the ruling , saying the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution . `` I have long been an advocate of closing Guantanamo , so I would hope this is in furtherance of taking that action , '' Pelosi said . The appeals involve noncitizens . Sixteen lawsuits filed on behalf of about 200 prisoners were put on hold pending a ruling last year by a federal appeals court upholding the government 's right to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists and war criminals . An attorney for one of the detainees , Salim Ahmed Hamdan -- Osama bin Laden 's alleged driver and bodyguard -- said he would file an appeal asking that charges be dropped against the Yemeni native . `` The clearest immediate impact of this ruling is to remove the remaining barriers for closing Guantanamo Bay . It means , in legal terms , Guantanamo Bay is no different than Kansas , '' attorney Charles Swift said . Now the ruling has been issued , a flood of similar appeals can be expected . The lead plaintiffs are Lakhdar Boumediene , a Bosnian , and Fawzi al-Odah of Kuwait . They question the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act , passed by Congress in October 2006 . The law addresses how suspected foreign terrorists and fighters can be tried and sentenced under U.S. military law . Under the system , those facing trial would have a limited right to appeal any conviction , reducing the jurisdiction of federal courts . The suspects also must prove to a three-person panel of military officers they are not a terror risk . But defendants would have access to evidence normally given to a jury , and CIA agents were given more guidance in how far they can go in interrogating prisoners . The law was a direct response to a June 2006 Supreme Court ruling striking down the Bush administration 's plan to try detainees before military commissions . In 2004 , the justices also affirmed the right of prisoners to challenge their detention in federal court . Congress and the administration have sought to restrict such access . The Justice Department wanted the high court to pass on these appeals , at least until the first wave of tribunals had a chance to work . Administration officials also argued the prisoners have plenty of legal safeguards . The White House has said it is considering whether to close the Guantanamo prison , suggesting some high-level al Qaeda detainees could be transferred to the federal prison in Leavenworth , Kansas , and to a military brig in North Charleston , South Carolina . Most of the dozens of pending cases have been handled in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington , which in February 2007 upheld the Military Commissions Act 's provision stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear `` habeas '' challenges to the prisoners ' confinement . But a three-judge panel of the same circuit expressed concern about why the U.S. military continues to limit attorney access to the Guantanamo men . The detainees ' legal team alleges the government is unfairly restricting access to potentially exculpatory evidence , including documents they may not know exist before pretrial hearings . Legal and terrorism analysts said the issues presented in these latest sets of appeals are unlike those the justices have delved into previously . `` The difference in this case is that they have a congressional enactment cutting back on habeas corpus that they have to wrestle with , '' said Edward Lazarus , a leading appellate attorney and author of a book on the high court , `` Closed Chambers : The Rise , Fall , and Future of the Modern Supreme Court . '' `` And that , from a constitutional point of view , is really a different question . '' In a separate decision , the court refused to intervene in the case of two American citizens convicted in Iraqi courts but held by the U.S. military . The high court rejected lawyers ' arguments that Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Ahmad Omar should be released , saying that U.S. courts are not allowed to intervene in foreign courts .