Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Argued March 28, 2006
Decided June 29, 2006
Full case nameSalim 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 no.05-184
Citations548 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
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorPetition 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)
Questions presented
(1) Whether the military commission established by the President to try petitioner and others similarly situated for alleged war crimes in the "war on terror" is duly authorized under Congress's Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224; the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); or the inherent powers of the President?
(2) Whether petitioner and others similarly situated can obtain judicial enforcement from an Article III court of rights protected under the 1949 Geneva Convention in an action for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their detention by the Executive branch?
Holding
Military commission to try petitioner is illegal and lacking the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityStevens (Parts I through IV, VI through VI–D–iii, VI–D–v, and VII), joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
PluralityStevens (Parts V and VI–D–iv), joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceBreyer, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg
ConcurrenceKennedy (in part), joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (Parts I and II)
DissentScalia, joined by Thomas, Alito
DissentThomas, joined by Scalia; Alito (all but Parts I, II–C–1, and III–B–2)
DissentAlito, joined by Scalia, Thomas (Parts I through 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 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.[1]

Hamdan raises several legal issues: 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 established by the executive branch violated federal law (including the UCMJ and treaty obligations); and whether courts can enforce the articles of the Geneva Conventions.[2][3]

After hearing oral arguments on March 28, 2006, on June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5–3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction; that the administration lacked either the constitutional power or congressional authorization to establish these particular military commissions; that, absent such authority, the military commissions had to comply with the "ordinary laws" of the U.S. and of war, which include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions incorporated therein; and that Hamdan's trial, having violated the rights and procedures under both bodies of law, was illegal.[4]

  1. ^ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Supreme Court Syllabus Archived December 7, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, pg. 4., point 4.
  2. ^ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Archived June 14, 2006, at the Wayback Machine, Duke Law's Supreme Court Online, 2005.
  3. ^ "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld". Oyez. Retrieved April 27, 2022.
  4. ^ "In Loss for Bush, Supreme Court Blocks War-Crimes Trials at Guantanamo", Associated Press, as reported by The New York Times, June 29, 2006.

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search