542 U.S. 507 (2004), 03-6696, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Docket Nº:03-6696
Citation:542 U.S. 507, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578, 72 U.S.L.W. 4607
Party Name:Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Case Date:June 28, 2004
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 507

542 U.S. 507 (2004)

124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578, 72 U.S.L.W. 4607

YASER ESAM HAMDI AND ESAM FOUAD HAMDI, AS NEXT FRIEND OF YASER ESAM HAMDI, PETITIONERS

DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.

No. 03-6696.

United States Supreme Court

June 28, 2004

Argued April 28, 2004

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[124 S.Ct. 2633] Syllabus [*] After Congress passed a resolution--the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)--empowering the President to "use all necessary and appropriate [124 S.Ct. 2634] force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks, the President ordered the Armed Forces to Afghanistan to subdue al Qaeda and quell the supporting Taliban regime. Petitioner Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen whom the Government has classified as an "enemy combatant" for allegedly taking up arms with the Taliban during the conflict, was captured in Afghanistan and presently is detained at a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. Hamdi's father filed this habeas petition on his behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging, among other things, that the Government holds his son in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Although the petition did not elaborate on the factual circumstances of Hamdi's capture and detention, his father has asserted in other documents in the record that Hamdi went to Afghanistan to do "relief work" less than two months before September 11 and could not have received military training. The Government attached to its response to the petition a declaration from Michael Mobbs (Mobbs Declaration), a Defense Department official. The Mobbs Declaration alleges various details regarding Hamdi's trip to Afghanistan, his affiliation there with a Taliban unit during a time when the Taliban was battling U. S. allies, and his subsequent surrender of an assault rifle. The District Court found that the Mobbs Declaration, standing alone, did not support Hamdi's detention and ordered the Government to turn over numerous materials for in camera review. The Fourth Circuit reversed, stressing that, because it was undisputed that Hamdi was captured in an active combat zone, no factual inquiry or evidentiary hearing allowing Hamdi to be heard or to rebut the Government's assertions was necessary or proper. Concluding that the factual averments in the Mobbs Declaration, if accurate, provided a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the President had constitutionally detained Hamdi, the court ordered the habeas petition dismissed. The appeals court held that, assuming that express congressional authorization of the detention was required by 18 U.S.C.

Page 508

§ 4001(a)--which provides that "[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress"--the AUMF's "necessary and appropriate force" language provided the authorization for Hamdi's detention. It also concluded that Hamdi is entitled only to a limited judicial inquiry into his detention's legality under the war powers of the political branches, and not to a searching review of the factual determinations underlying his seizure.

Held:

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.

316 F.3d 450, vacated and remanded.

Justice O'CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice KENNEDY, and Justice BREYER, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 2635-2652.

Justice SOUTER, joined by Justice GINSBURG, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2652-2653, 2660.

O'CONNOR, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and KENNEDY and BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring [124 S.Ct. 2635] in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, post, p. 2652. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined, post, p. 2660. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 2674.

COUNSEL

Kenneth P. Troccoli, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Geremy C. Kamens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, VA, for petitioners.

Theodore B. Olson, Solicitor General, Paul D. Clement, Deputy Solicitor General, Gregory G. Garre, Assistant to the Solicitor General, John A. Drennan, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

OPINION

Justice O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice KENNEDY, and Justice BREYER join.

Page 509

At this difficult time in our Nation's history, we are called upon to consider the legality of the Government's detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an "enemy combatant" and to address the process that is constitutionally owed to one who seeks to challenge his classification as such. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that petitioner Yaser Hamdi's detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. We now vacate and remand. We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.Page 510

I

On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network used hijacked commercial airliners to attack prominent targets in the United States. Approximately 3,000 people were killed in those attacks. One week later, in response to these "acts of treacherous violence," Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" or "harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224. Soon thereafter, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to Afghanistan, with a mission to subdue al Qaeda and quell the Taliban regime that was known to support it.

This case arises out of the detention of a man whom the Government alleges took up arms with the Taliban during this conflict. His name is Yaser Esam Hamdi. Born in Louisiana in 1980, Hamdi moved with his family to Saudi Arabia as a child. By 2001, the parties agree, he resided in Afghanistan. At some point that year, he was seized by members of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of military groups opposed to the Taliban government, and [124 S.Ct. 2636] eventually was turned over to the United States military. The Government asserts that it initially detained and interrogated Hamdi in Afghanistan before transferring him to the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. In April 2002, upon learning that Hamdi is an American citizen, authorities transferred him to a naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he remained until a recent transfer to a brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Government contends that Hamdi is an "enemy combatant," and that this status justifies holding him in the United States indefinitely--without formal charges or proceedings--unless and until it makes the Page 511

determination that access to counsel or further process is warranted.

In June 2002, Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia, naming as petitioners his son and himself as next friend. The elder Hamdi alleges in the petition that he has had no contact with his son since the Government took custody of him in 2001, and that the Government has held his son "without access to legal counsel or notice of any charges pending against him." App. 103, 104. The petition contends that Hamdi's detention was not legally authorized. id., at 105. It argues that, "[a]s an American citizen, ... Hamdi enjoys the full protections of the Constitution," and that Hamdi's detention in the United States without charges, access to an impartial tribunal, or assistance of counsel "violated and continue[s] to violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." id., at 107. The habeas petition asks that the court, among other things, (1) appoint counsel for Hamdi; (2) order respondents to cease interrogating him; (3) declare that he is being held in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) "[t]o the extent Respondents contest any material factual allegations in this Petition, schedule an evidentiary hearing, at which Petitioners may adduce proof in support of their allegations"; and (5) order that Hamdi be released from his "unlawful custody." id., at 108-109. Although his habeas petition provides no details with regard to the factual circumstances surrounding his son's capture and detention, Hamdi's father has asserted in documents found elsewhere in the record that his son went to Afghanistan to do "relief work," and that he had been in that country less than two months before September 11, 2001, and could not have received military training. id., at 188-189. The 20-year-old was traveling on his...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
927 practice notes
  • 1 F.Supp.3d 647 (S.D. Tex. 2014), 4:11-CV-3425, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Southern District of Texas
    • 4 mars 2014
    ...a deficiency in a process is more process, not letting one party off the hook entirely." Id. at 184 (citing, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 495-97, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Fuentes v. Shevi......
  • 968 F.3d 190 (2nd Cir. 2020), 20-2056-cv, Hassoun v. Searls
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • 30 juillet 2020
    ...proceedings." Sea Island Broad. Corp. of S.C. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 240, 243 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 534, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004), which dealt with the potentially indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil, a ......
  • 970 F.3d 174 (2nd Cir. 2020), 17-1558, Liberian Community Association of Connecticut v. Lamont
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • 14 août 2020
    ...S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Procedural due process applies to involuntary confinement. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 529, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004). This is because "[p]rocedural due process imposes constraints on government......
  • 991 F.Supp.2d 1307 (S.D.Ga. 2014), CR 213-26, United States v. Arnold
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 11th Circuit Southern District of Georgia
    • 7 janvier 2014
    ...opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that " [a]ctive combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan." 542 U.S. 507, 521, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004); see also Swanson, at 1577 (describing Prosperi's holding as " absurd" and " run......
  • Free signup to view additional results
594 cases
  • 1 F.Supp.3d 647 (S.D. Tex. 2014), 4:11-CV-3425, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 5th Circuit Southern District of Texas
    • 4 mars 2014
    ...a deficiency in a process is more process, not letting one party off the hook entirely." Id. at 184 (citing, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 533, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004); Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 495-97, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980); Fuentes v. Shevi......
  • 317 F.Supp.3d 480 (D.D.C. 2018), Civ. 10-cv-1020 (RJL), Ali v. Trump
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Court, Federal Circuit
    • 10 août 2018
    ...it was a "clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities." 542 U.S. 507, 520-21, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) (plurality opinion) (citing Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of P......
  • 801 F.Supp.2d 1247 (USCMCR 2011), CMCR 09-002, United States v. Hamdan
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts District of Columbia
    • 24 juin 2011
    ...armed forces to Afghanistan " to subdue al Qaeda and quell the Taliban regime that was known to support it." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 510, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004). Subsequently, Page 1258 United States and allied armed forces engaged in military operations i......
  • 968 F.3d 190 (2nd Cir. 2020), 20-2056-cv, Hassoun v. Searls
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • 30 juillet 2020
    ...proceedings." Sea Island Broad. Corp. of S.C. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 240, 243 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 534, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004), which dealt with the potentially indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil, a ......
  • Free signup to view additional results
329 books & journal articles
  • Executive Detention, Boumediene, and the New Common Law of Habeas
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 95-2, February 2010
    • 1 février 2010
    ...CSRT is an ad hoc administrative body the Bush Administration engineered hastily after the Supreme Court's rulings in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), and Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), to evaluate the Defense Department's prior assessment that each detainee in Guantanamo was ......
  • Parole: corpse or phoenix?
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 50 Nbr. 2, March 2013
    • 22 mars 2013
    ...a habeas corpus review. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). For a discussion of those decisions, see Robert Chesney & Jack Goldsmith, Terrorism and the Convergence of Criminal and Military D......
  • When deference is dangerous: the judicial role in material-witness detentions.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 49 Nbr. 3, June 2012
    • 22 juin 2012
    ...See Barkow, Separation of Powers, supra note 214, at 1009 (explaining the Court's rejection of a formalist argument in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), and noting that: "'The Court did not want to put the government to the choice of suspending the writ or pursuing criminal charg......
  • The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama administration.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 26 Nbr. 3, June 2010
    • 22 juin 2010
    ...is troubling insofar as it is difficult to square with the Supreme Court's own observations on the subject. See, e.g., Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 521 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("[W]e understand Congress' grant of authority for the use of 'necessary and appropriate force' to incl......
  • Free signup to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Quarantine, inspection, and licensing: Communicable diseases control,
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 30, 2005
    • 21 novembre 2005
    ...the government's asserted interest and the burdens that the government would face in providing greater process. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 2646 (2004) (relying on Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). Due process is a flexible concept requiring that the level of proces......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 30, 2005
    • 21 novembre 2005
    ...the government's asserted interest and the burdens that the government would face in providing greater process. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 2646 (2004) (relying on Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)). Due process is a flexible concept requiring that the level of proces......