Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Yaser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured in Afghanistan and detained as an ’enemy combatant’ at Guantanamo Bay and later in U.S. military brigs. He was held without charges or access to counsel. Hamdi’s father filed a habeas petition, arguing that the government’s detention violated the Constitution.

Significance

Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion held that while the President has authority to detain enemy combatants under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), detained U.S. citizens must receive due process — including notice of the factual basis for their detention and a meaningful opportunity to contest it before a neutral decision-maker. The Court struck down the government’s position that it could detain citizens indefinitely without any process. Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that the Constitution requires criminal prosecution unless Congress suspends habeas corpus.

Category

US Federal Case Law