Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Brief Fact Summary.

The United States detained Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen without any formal charges or proceedings and classified him as an enemy combatant, alleging he fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Hamdi’s father filed a habeus corpus petition and contested the Government’s allegations against Hamdi.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) establishes that no citizen shall be imprisoned or detained by the U.S. except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

The Authorization of Use of Military Force Resolution (AUMF) authorized the Executive branch to use all necessary and appropriate force against entities associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube, the Court established that war is not a blanket authorization for the Executive Branch in cases of citizens’ rights.

Facts.

The Government alleged that Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, fought with the Taliban. In 2001, the Afghan Northern Alliance captured Hamdi and turned him over to the U.S. The government classified Hamdi as an enemy combatant, and argued that this status allowed them to hold him indefinitely without formal charges or proceedings. Hamdi’s father filed a habeas corpus petition, and asserted that Hamdi was in Afghanistan to do relief work, that he did not receive military training, and that he was trapped in Afghanistan when the military campaign began. The Government responded to the petition, alleging that Hamdi traveled to Afghanistan in the summer of 2001, he affiliated with a Taliban military unit and remained with them after the attacks on 9/11, he received weapons training, his unit surrendered to the Northern Alliance, and he surrendered an assault rifle to them.

Issue.

1. Did the Executive have the authority to detain citizens who qualified as enemy combatants?
2. What process is due to detained citizens who contest their status as enemy combatants?
3.  Do courts have the authority to examine individual process cases involving military decision-making in ongoing conflicts?

Held.

1. Yes, the Executive had the authority to detain citizens who qualified as enemy combatants.
2. Citizens who contest their status as enemy-combatants are entitled to notice of the factual basis of their classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker.
3. Yes, the courts have the authority to examine individual process.
4. Judgement vacated and remanded.

Dissent.

Justice Scalia

Justice Scalia argued that Article I, § 9, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution—the Suspension Clause— allows Congress to suspend  habeus corpus in situations where the exigencies of war justify doing so. According to Justice Scalia, the AUMF is an implementation of the Suspension Clause. Justice Scalia also noted that the group of potential detainees is limited to citizens accused of being enemy combatants who are detained in the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts, which is a small group of people.

Justice Thomas

Hamdi’s detention falls within the federal government’s war powers, and the Court cannot question it.

Concurrence.

Justice Souter

Concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. Justice Souter did not agree with the plurality’s position that the AUMF would authorize Hamdi’s detention if he was in fact an enemy combatant. According to Justice Souter, the Government did not satisfy the detention requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a).

Discussion.

1. 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) establishes that no citizens shall be detained except pursuant to an Act of Congress. The AUMFauthorized the Executive to use all necessary and appropriate force against entities associated with the attacks on 9/11. Individuals who fought with the Taliban against the United States are individuals that Congress contemplated when passing the AUMF. For the purposes of this analysis, “enemy combatant” is defined as someone who the government alleged was part of or supported forces hostile to the U.S. in Afghanistan, and engaged in armed conflict against the U.S.
2. Citizens who contest their status as enemy-combatants are entitled to notice of the factual basis of their classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. However, the exigencies of the circumstances may require evidentiary standards to be relaxed. Additionally, this process does not have to be afforded during initial captures on the battlefield, but only for individuals who the government continues to detain.
3. The government argued that the separation of powers doctrine barred the courts from examining individual process in cases related to military decision-making in ongoing conflicts, and that courts could only examine the legality of the broader detention scheme. The court rejected this argument, holding that the government’s argument would condense power into the Executive branch alone. The Court cited Youngstown Sheet & Tube as establishing that war is not a blanket authorization for the Executive branch in cases of citizens’ rights.