Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
| Hamdan v. Rumsfeld | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 28, 2006 Decided June 29, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Petitioner v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense; John D. Altenburg, Jr., Appointing Authority for Military Commissions, Department of Defense; Brigadier General Thomas L. Hemingway, Legal Advisor to the Appointing Authority for Military Commissions; Brigadier General Jay Hood, Commander Joint Task Force, Guantanamo, Camp Echo, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; George W. Bush, President of the United States |
| Docket nos. | 05-184 |
| Citations | 548 U.S. 557 (more)
126 S. Ct. 2749; 165 L. Ed. 2d 723; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5185; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 452
|
| Prior history | Petition for habeas corpus granted, 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2004); reversed, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir., 2005); cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 622 (2006) |
| Holding | |
| Military commission to try Plaintiff is illegal and lacking the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (Parts I through IV, VI through VI-D-iii, Vi-D-v, and VII) |
| Plurality | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (Parts V and VI-D-iv) |
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (only as to I, II) |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia; Alito (all but I, II-C-1, III-B-2) |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Scalia, Thomas (only as to I – III) |
| Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const.; Geneva Conventions, Common Arts. 2 & 3; UCMJ, Arts. 21 & 36; Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) §1005; AUMF | |
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.
The case considers whether the United States Congress may pass legislation preventing the Supreme Court from hearing the case of an accused combatant before his military commission takes place, whether the special military commissions that had been set up violated federal law (including the Uniform Code of Military Justice and treaty obligations), and whether courts can enforce the articles of the 1949 Geneva Convention.
An unusual aspect of the case was an amicus brief filed by Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, which presented an "extensive colloquy" added to the Congressional record as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear cases brought by the Guantanamo detainees. Because these statements were not included in the December 21 debate at the time, Emily Bazelon of Slate magazine has argued their brief was an attempt to mislead the court.
...
Wikipedia