Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Docket No.: 03-6696
Certiorari Granted: Jan 9 2004
Argued: April 28, 2004
Decided: June 28, 2004

Topics:

Due Process, Due Process, Hearing or Notice, Article I, Bill of Rights, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Judicial Power, Suspension Clause, Torture Victim Protection Act, criminal procedure, habeas, habeas corpus, immigration, judicial review, probable cause, property rights, qualified immunity, separation of powers

PartyNames: Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
Petitioner: Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi
Respondent: Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Citation: CA 4, 316 F.3d 450 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Does the Constitution permit Executive officials to detain an Americancitizen indefinitely in military custody in the United States, hold him essentially incommunicado and deny him access to counsel, with noopportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before any impartial tribunal, on the sole ground that he was seized abroad in a theater of the War on Terrorism and declared by the Executive to be an "enemy combatant"?
Supreme Court Docket

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
542 U.S. 507 (2004)
Question Presented:

I. Does the Constitution permit Executive officials to detain an Americancitizen indefinitely in military custody in the United States, hold him essentially incommunicado and deny him access to counsel, with noopportunity to question the factual basis for his detention before any impartial tribunal, on the sole ground that he was seized abroad in a theater of the War on Terrorism and declared by the Executive to be an "enemy combatant"? 2. Is the indefinite detention of an American citizen seized abroad but held in the United States solely on the assertion of Executive officials that he is an"enemy combatant" permissible under applicable congressional statutes and treaty provisions? 3. In a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the indefinite detention of an American citizen seized abroad, detained in the United States, and declared by Executive officials to be an "enemy combatant," does the separation of powers doctrine preclude a federal co urt from following ordinary statutoryprocedures and conducting an inquiry into the factual basis for the Executive branch's asserted justification of the detention? CERT. GRANTED: 1/9/04

Question:

Did the government violate Hamdi's Fifth Amendment right to Due Process by holding him indefinitely, without access to an attorney, based solely on an Executive Branch declaration that he was an "enemy combatant" who fought against the United States? Does the separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to Executive Branch determinations that an American citizen is an "enemy combatant"?

Note:

. CA 4, 316 F.3d 450

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 28, 2004

Holding: vacated and remanded
Decision: Decision: 6 votes for Hamdi, 3 vote(s) against
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)