Rumsfeld v. Padilla
| Rumsfeld v. Padilla | |
|---|---|
 F.3d 695, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25616 (2d Cir. 2003). | |
| Subsequent | Remanded for entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice, Padilla v. Hanft, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2921 (D.S.C., Feb. 28, 2005) |
| Holding | |
| Habeas corpus petition had been improperly filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and should have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina; petition should have named Padilla's immediate custodian, not the Secretary of Defense. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by O'Connor |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. II, U.S. Const. amend. V; 18 U.S.C. § 4001; 115 Stat. 224 (Authorization for Use of Military Force) | |
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), was a
On May 8, 2002, Padilla, a U.S. citizen, flew from Pakistan to Chicago's
Padilla's attorney, Donna Newman, claiming to act as his
The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that the President lacked the authority to order the military detentions of American citizens captured on American soil.[1]
The case was petitioned to the
The Court did not decide the issue. Instead, the Court held that the habeas corpus petition had been improperly filed. It ruled that because Padilla was being held in a brig (military prison) in South Carolina, the petition should have been filed in the
Background
The case was argued only two days before the
The timing of the two events is relevant for understanding political context. Before the publicizing of incriminating photographs of abused detainees in Iraq, the US was largely dominated by a political climate in which the charge of abuse was only anecdotal and was weighed lightly compared to appeals for national security. Still, the rendered decision came after news of the scandal broke, and the degree of the Abu Ghraib case influence is speculative.
During the oral argument, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked some pointed questions of Clement, some of which directly treated the issue of abuse. An important dialogue features a comment by Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement which denies the claim that the United States uses torture:
- 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
- What's constraining? That's the point. Is it just up to the good will of the executive, or is there any judicial check?
Supreme Court cases
- Ex Parte Milligan
- Ex Parte Quirin
- Johnson v. Eisentrager
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
- Rasul v. Bush
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
References
External links
- Text of Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Tatler blog entry noting the issue's connection to Abu Ghraib