Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

E582776

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that held American citizens designated as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker.

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld canonical 5

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
legal case ⓘ
arguedDate April 28, 2004 ⓘ
citation 542 U.S. 507 ⓘ
concurrenceBy David H. Souter ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
concurrenceInJudgmentBy David H. Souter ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Article II of the United States Constitution ⓘ
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause ⓘ
linked to: Due Process Clause
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate June 28, 2004 ⓘ
dissentBy Antonin Scalia ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
docketNumber No. 03-6696 ⓘ
hasParty Donald H. Rumsfeld ⓘ
linked to: Donald Rumsfeld

Yaser Esam Hamdi ⓘ
hasPartyRole Donald H. Rumsfeld – respondent ⓘ
linked to: Donald Rumsfeld

Yaser Esam Hamdi – petitioner ⓘ
holding A U.S. citizen designated as an enemy combatant must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision-maker. ⓘ
Separation of powers does not bar judicial review of the detention of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. ⓘ
The Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens captured in Afghanistan as enemy combatants, subject to due process limits. ⓘ
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
legalIssue detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants ⓘ
due process rights of enemy combatants ⓘ
interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force ⓘ
scope of executive war powers ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
originatingCourt United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ⓘ
pageInUnitedStatesReports 507 ⓘ
pluralityJoinedBy Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
pluralityOpinionBy Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
precedentFor judicial review of enemy combatant detentions ⓘ
relatedTo War on Terror ⓘ
detention at Guantánamo Bay and other military facilities ⓘ
resultForHamdi remanded for further proceedings consistent with due process requirements ⓘ
shortDescription U.S. Supreme Court case recognizing due process rights of U.S. citizens detained as enemy combatants to challenge their detention before a neutral decision-maker. ⓘ
statuteInterpreted Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 ⓘ
subjectMatter civil liberties in wartime ⓘ
executive power ⓘ
habeas corpus ⓘ
national security law ⓘ
volumeInUnitedStatesReports 542 ⓘ
voteSplit plurality decision ⓘ
yearDecided 2004 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (5)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

opinion in Rasul v. Bush → relatedTo → Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ⓘ
Boumediene v. Bush → relatedCase → Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ⓘ
Ex parte Quirin → relatedTo → Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ⓘ
Suspension Clause → centralIssueInCase → Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ⓘ
Ex parte Milligan → relatedCase → Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ⓘ