Padilla v. Rumsfeld Term Paper

Pages: 15 (4611 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: ≈ 2  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Business - Law

The decree, at the time, is that at any time a habeas petitioner pursues to challenge his present physical charge within the United States, he should name his keeper as defendant and make the correct means to start filing the petition in the district of imprisonment (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005).

U.S. Supreme Court Reasoning

Basically, in the Padilla case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the habeas petitions had been wrongly filed in the Southern District of New York, as Mr. Padilla was being detained in South Carolina. As a result, the Court transferred the case to the South Carolina District Court. The South Carolina District Court decided that Padilla was also allowed to a hearing before a neutral court of law in order to figure out if he was an "unlawful combatant," or he was enabled to be released if no hearing was to be done (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005).

Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77
The Supreme Court on 7 November 2005 delivered a court order so that they could hear case. The petition was then filed on behalf by Hamdan. The Seattle law business, Perkins Coie, provided the extra lawful advice for Hamdan. The case was contended before the Supreme Court. Katyal contended on the side of Hamdan. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself for the reason that he had up to that time ruled on this case as part of the three judge board on the United States Court of Pleas for the District of Columbia Circuit (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005). During that time, opponents called for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, ever since he had made apparently inappropriate explanations in regards to the choice of the circumstance previous to listening to oral arguments such as the following: "I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy").

The Supreme Court announced its decision and the Court upturned the decision of the Court of Petitions, maintaining that President George W. Bush did not have power to set up the war crimes tribunals and ruling that the special military commissions is unlawful under both military the Geneva Conventions and justice law.

Term Paper on Padilla v. Rumsfeld Assignment

Lower Court Reasoning

The lower court or the District Court held that Padilla's detention is not as such illegal, but that the matter as to whether the imprisonment is legal will turn on whether the President has "some indication to support his discovery that Padilla was an opponent fighter." The District Court also held that it would decide the habeas appeal based upon that legal standard and that Padilla could be able to consult with counsel in order to aid in the habeas corpus petition stimulating the arrest. The government appealed to the Second Circuit, that the President lacked inherent expert to order Padilla's military detention (Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 2005). The District Court, as a result, ordered Padilla's release from military custody, but permitted the government to transport him to civilian powers that be in order to be held for criminal prosecution or, if suitable, as a material witness.

Summary of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi, a United States citizen was being imprisoned as an illegal enemy soldier, defied the legitimacy of his imprisonment. Also, the research shows that the Court disallowed his argument that the President lacked the power to confine citizen enemy participants, making the point that Legislative body representation of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF authorized the President to do so. Nevertheless the Court decided with Hamdi that due process permitted a United States inhabitant who was imprisoned in the United States as an enemy fighter to a significant chance to challenge his description as an enemy opponent before an unbiased decision maker. On the same day as Rasul, Hamdi was decided, which held that federal courts have dominion to deliberate enemy foreigners' challenges to the validity of their imprisonment at Guantanamo as unlawful enemy fighters.

History of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

After the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia chose a federal public defender to stand for Hamdi, the Government enthused to discharge his habeas appeal. In upkeep of that gesture, the Government yield to a statement from Special Consultant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Rule Michael Mobbs. Research shows that the Mobbs Statement "set forth . . . The single evidentiary support" for Hamdi's position as an illegal enemy. Depending on his participation in the custody of enemy combatants and understanding with the "circumstances and facts" of Hamdi's capture, Mobbs said that Hamdi "voyaged to Afghanistan" which took place in August 2001, "associated with a Taliban military unit and received arms working out," and was with his unit when it "yielded" to the alliance forces. The District Court discovered that this statement came down "way short" of sustaining Hamdi's imprisonment and condemned the "generic and gossip nature of the sworn statement" as "little beyond the [G]overnment's say-so.'" Therefore, the District Court arranged the Government to produce many materials for in camera review to conclude whether Hamdi's detention was lawfully approved and whether he had obtained due procedure.

Since the Government desired to petition this interlocutory production order, the District Court specialized the query of whether the Mobbs Statement, of its own accord, was enough to offer Hamdi with expressive judicial analysis of his imprisonment. The Fourth Circuit overturned and absorbed the District Court to refute Hamdi's habeas request. For the reason that it was "acknowledged that Hamdi was apprehended in a precinct of active combat in a foreign theater of encounter," the Mobbs Statement, if correct, was adequate to support Hamdi's detention, and federal courts could not "investigate much more into Hamdi's capture and status." The Fourth Circuit likewise disallowed Hamdi's dispute that the President lacked constitutional power to keep citizen enemy combatants and disallowed Hamdi's argument that his United States citizenship allowed him to "more probing" judicial review of his detention than an enemy alien would obtain. Hamdi appealed the Supreme Court for a summons of certiorari, which it decided.


Subsequent al Qaeda's September 11, 2001 bomber assaults that took place at the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Virginia, Congress sanctioned the Head of state to "utilize all essential and suitable force" in contradiction of those accountable to stop them from obligating "any future doings of worldwide terrorism contrary to the United States." The Head of state made the decision that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had sustained al Qaeda and then gave orders to have the Armed Forces to attack Afghanistan. Throughout this attack, hundreds of persons, as well as Yaser Esam Hamdi, were apprehended.

Further research showed that the Government at one time interrogated and detained Hamdi in Afghanistan before transporting him to the United State navigational base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for imprisonment. Sometime during in April 2002, the Government discovered that Hamdi was a United States citizen previously born in Louisiana, so it transferred him to a naval brig inside the United States. Considering Hamdi to be an "enemy fighter" who had gotten training from the military and joined forces with the Taliban, the Government imprisoned him short of accusing him with a wrongdoing or giving him any prospect to contest his description as an illegal enemy opponent (Rumsfeld, 2012).

The father of Hamdi's came forth and challenged the legality of his son's imprisonment by filing an appeal for court order of habeas corpus on his son's behalf in June of 2002. As stated by Hamdi's father, his son journeyed to Afghanistan way before September 11, 2001 happened, to do what he called "relief work." When Hamdi got there, he was "imprisoned in Afghanistan as soon as [the U.S.] military operation started." When the Supreme Court's pronouncement was done, the Government allowed Hamdi to go without charges and then had him deported to Saudi Arabia, where his family was still living and also, this was the place of his childhood and where he spent most of his life, in exchange for giving up his United States citizenship.

The Holding

Even though a fractured judgment, six justices (the majority combined by Ginsburg and Justices Souter) came to the agreement to incarcerate the case for Hamdi to accept the practical protections necessary by due process. Justices Stevens and Scalia would have decided Hamdi's habeas petition, despite the fact Justice Thomas would have repudiated Hamdi's habeas appeal.

Reasoning for the Supreme Court

A majority of the Supreme Court -- plainly approved the President to detain both citizen and non-citizen enemy combatants, nonetheless (2) due process necessitates that "a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant" -- for example Hamdi -- "be provided with a significant prospect to competition the accurate foundation for that detention before a unbiased decision maker."

The majority rejected Hamdi's dispute that the Non-Detention Act [LINK] banned his… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (15 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Case of Padilla v. Hanft 423 F. 3D 386 4th Cir 2005 Research Paper

Case of Padilla v. Hanft 423 F. 3D 386 4th Cir 2005 Research Paper

Judical Review of Indefinate Detention Padilla v Assessment

Business Homeland Security Hamdan v Research Proposal

Korematsu Rasul Al Odah and Hamdi Cases Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Padilla v. Rumsfeld" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Padilla v. Rumsfeld.  (2014, May 25).  Retrieved September 27, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Padilla v. Rumsfeld."  25 May 2014.  Web.  27 September 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Padilla v. Rumsfeld."  May 25, 2014.  Accessed September 27, 2020.