Rumsfeld v. Padilla
|
|
| Rumsfeld v. Padilla | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued April 28, 2004 Decided June 28, 2004 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||
| Does Congress' "Authorization for Military Force" authorize the President to detain a citizen of the United States based on establishing that person as an enemy combatant, or is that power prohibited by the Non-Detention Act? | ||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| U.S. Const. Art. II, Amend. V; 18 U.S.C. § 4001; 115 Stat. 224 (Authorization for Use of Military Force) |
Donald Rumsfeld v. José Padilla and Donna Newman was a United States Supreme Court case, brought by Donald Rumsfeld against José Padilla, regarding the juristictional question of Padilla's (a United States citizen) place within the US legal system, in the wake of his detainment as an "unlawful combatant." It was remanded back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for dismissal on June 28, 2004 on the basis that the habeus corpus was inappropriately filed.
The issue before the Court is to determine whether the Congressional "Authorization for use of Military Force" post September 11 give to the President the powers to detain a United States citizen, solely on the claim (by whatever means substantiated) that the citizen is an "enemy combatant." If so, then this new power would preclude the Non-Detention Act.
Padilla was arrested in Chicago upon his arrival from Pakistan, where the FBI claims that he was meeting with al-Qaida operatives, and was returning to carry out acts of violence against the United States. For a time he was considered a "material witness", without charges filed, and given only very limited access to legal counsel. His designation was changed to "enemy combatant," which means that he, like many non-citizen suspects in the War on Terror, could be imprisoned indefinitely, and without legal recourse or access.
His representative, Donna Newman, filed a petition for habeas corpus on his behalf, to claim the right to defend Padilla, The US District Court of Southern New York ruled that Newman had standing to file the petition, but also found that the Department of Defense, under a Presidential order, had the power to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant.
Paul Clement represented Rumsfeld. Jennifer Martinez gave oral argument on behalf of Padilla and Newman.
Political context
The case was argued only two days before the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal was first shown to the general public in a New Yorker article by Seymour M. Hersh (April 30), which showed digital photos taken by guards. The story was subsequently taken up by CBS and broadcast on nationwide television.
The timing of the two events is relevant for understanding political context —before the publicizing of incriminating photographs of abused Iraqi detainess, the United States was largely dominated by a political climate wherin the charge of abuse was only anecdotal —it was weighed lightly as compared to appeals for national security. Still, the rendered decision came after news of the scandal broke, and the degree to which the Abu Ghraib case had influence is speculative.
During the oral argument, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked some pointed questions of Rumsfeld's attorney —some of which directly treated the issue of abuse. An important dialogue features a comment by Rumsfeld attorney Paul Clement which denies the claim that the United States uses torture, euphemistically referred to as "rendition":
- Justice Ginsburg: Suppose the Executive says 'mild torture, we think will help get this information.' It's not a soldier who does something against the code of military justice, but it's an Executive command. Some systems do that to get information...
- Clement: Well, our Executive doesn't. And I think, I mean...
- Justice Ginsburg: [But] what's constraining? That's the point. Is it just up to the good will of the Executive, or is there any Judicial check?
External links
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla (http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/rumvpad.html), U.S. Supreme Court Decision
- Abstract (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1730/) (OYEZ)
- Oral argument (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/audio/1730/argument.smil) in Realmedia format (OYEZ)
- Tatler blog entry (http://tatler.typepad.com/tatler/2004/05/rumsfeld_v_padi.html) noting the issues connection to Abu Ghraib