This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Supreme Court |citation=542 US 507 (2004) |date=June 28, 2004 |subject=Constitutional Law |appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit |c...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit | |appealed_from=U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit | ||
|facts=A U.S. citizen was captured in Afghanistan and found to be part of al Qaeda. | |facts=A U.S. citizen was captured in Afghanistan and found to be part of al Qaeda. | ||
|issues=Whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as <span style="background:yellow">enemy combatants</span>. | |||
|issues=Whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as enemy combatants. | |holding=Yes and no. A citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant is guaranteed by Fifth Amendment [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Due_process|due process]] the right to contest that detention before a neutral decision-maker. | ||
|holding=Yes and no. A citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant is guaranteed by Fifth Amendment due process the right to contest that detention before a neutral | |||
|rule=The Executive authority to detain individuals who are classified as enemy combatants are still afforded Due Process. | |rule=The Executive authority to detain individuals who are classified as enemy combatants are still afforded Due Process. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-6696 | |link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-6696 | ||
Line 43: | Line 28: | ||
|opinion_type=dissent | |opinion_type=dissent | ||
|written_by=Clarence Thomas | |written_by=Clarence Thomas | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 03:40, July 14, 2023
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld | |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | 542 US 507 (2004) |
Date decided | June 28, 2004 |
Appealed from | U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit |
Case Opinions | |
plurality | written by Sandra Day O'Connor joined by William H. Rehnquist, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer |
concur/dissent | written by David H. Souter joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg |
dissent | written by Antonin Scalia joined by John Paul Stevens |
dissent | written by Clarence Thomas |
Facts
A U.S. citizen was captured in Afghanistan and found to be part of al Qaeda.
Issues
Whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as enemy combatants.
Holding
Yes and no. A citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant is guaranteed by Fifth Amendment due process the right to contest that detention before a neutral decision-maker.
Rule
The Executive authority to detain individuals who are classified as enemy combatants are still afforded Due Process.