Summary of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Citation:  542 U.S. 507

Relevant Facts:  Hamdi was captured on the “battlefield” during U.S. Operations in Afghanistan.  Hamdi, a U.S. Citizen, was classified as an enemy combatant and held in military custody within the United States.  He sought to challenge his classification, and detention, but was rebuffed by courts unwilling to question executive and military determinations as to his status.

Issue:  Whether the executive can hold a U.S. Citizen, classified as an enemy combatant, in custody without the opportunity for meaningful review of the facts surrounding that classification consistent with the due process requirements of the 5^th and 14^th Amendments?

Holding:  The Executive may not classify a citizen as a combatant subject to indefinite detention absent the opportunity for limited review of the basis for that classification; full review is neither required nor guaranteed, but the absence of any review unconstitutionally violates the rights of citizens to due process.

Reasoning:  The Court did not rule on the government’s contention that the President is authorized to designate, and detain, enemy combatants under plenary executive authority conferred by Article II.  Rather, the Court concluded that Congress had authorized such detention, but not without any possibility for review.  Congressional authorization for the use of military force in the wake of the September 11^th attacks included, inherently, the authority to do all things necessary for effectuating the aims of the use of such force.  Detaining captured enemy combatants is inherent to the authority to make war, notwithstanding the citizenship of the combatant in question.  However, the authority to designate and detain is not without limits.

Given the plurality’s determination that detention authority has limits, the Court attempted to define the contours of such limits.  The Court acknowledged the government’s legitimate concerns about both the ability to effectively wage war and to protect sensitive intelligence.  The standard adopted, then, must address those concerns and carefully balance the extremely important national security interests common to all citizens with the undeniably important liberty interests of a particular citizen being detained.  Therefore, the Court determined citizens classified as enemy combatants are entitled to meaningful review of that determination before a neutral arbiter.  While full review, available in other contexts, is inappropriate and indeed dangerous to important government interests, the unavailability of all review violates basic guarantees of due process.

Dissent:  Justice Scalia dissenting, arguing that the Constitution provides for suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by Congress.  The relevant inquiry, then, is whether Congress suspended the writ in authorizing the use of military force.  Concluding that it did not, Scalia contends that the court’s inquiry should end, citing the long history of habeas and due process jurisprudence to establish the principles underlying his conclusion.  Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court was ill-equipped to second guess decisions of the executive or legislative offices in furtherance of their Constitutional prerogatives to execute war powers.  Justice Souter also filed an opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part.  He argued that detention was not authorized by Congress, and therefore impermissible.  However, he concurred in the Court’s decision to remand the case for further proceedings such that Hamdi should have the opportunity to challenge his classification and detention.

Conclusion:  Citizens detained as enemy combatants are entitled to meaningful judicial review as to the basis for determining their status.  Congress authorized such detentions, but not without review.