Introduction
Arguably, the landmark of both Padilla v. Rumsfeld and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision as issued by the US Supreme Court introduced significant changes within the US tradition of the judicial deference (Keller & Forowicz, 2007). Further, various related studies have pointed out that these cases have shed new light on the concept of power separation, international humanitarian law application, Supreme Court function in addition to the individual rights of detainees within the war of terror framework (Martinez, 2004). The Supreme Court decision based on the two cases dominated numerous daily newspapers throughout the world and went further to massive global resonance. The essay will first provide a summary of the two cases, and then clearly focus on the reasoning and arguments provided by the lower courts and Supreme Court concerning the cases. Lastly, contrast and compare the ruling that was made in the two cases and determine the impact of the cases in the US’s civil rights and criminal justice system.
Summary of the facts and main issues of each case
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is one of the US Supreme Court cases where the Court was to determine the overall power of the government to hold into custody any enemy combatant among them such as the American citizens (Martinez, 2004). In the ruling, the court came to an agreement that a detainee especially the American citizens ought to have their rights to access due process in addition to the right to be able to challenge the present status associated with them related to enemy combatant status. Further, this should be determined by an authority that is highly impartial.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The US Supreme Court, therefore, came to a decision that reserved the ruling made by the lower court of rejecting habeas corpus petition that was filed on Hamdi’s behalf. He an American citizen and was indefinitely detained as ‘illegal enemy’ combatant when he was arrested in the year 2001 in Afghanistan. According to Martinez (2004), after the decision by the court in the year 9, 2004, the US government was forced to set Hamdi free with no charge against him. Hamdi was later deported to his home country, Saudi Arabia and further asked to renounce his American citizenship and at the same time strictly follow certain travel restrictions and other suitable condition.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, on the other hand, is also one of the US Supreme Court cases where Padilla, a citizen of US seeks the relief of habeas corpus against Rumsfeld following his detention by the military as an illegal combatant. In the year, 8, 2002, Padilla, had traveled to Chicago from Pakistan but he was immediately apprehended by the federal agents who were carrying out ‘material witness warrant as given by the US District Court when leaving the airport (Olson, 2017). The District Court specifically issued the warrant in connection with the grand jury investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At first, Padilla, upon his arrest was considered as a ‘material witness’ with no charge filed against him, and he was given limited accessibility to his legal counsel. Later, Padilla was considered as an ‘enemy combatant’ that was claimed by the Bush’s administration as one of the justifications for his indefinite imprisonment and deny him legal recourse. According to Olson (2017), the government had contended that Padilla should be held incommunicado for 18 months without any serious chance to put the state to the proof using a proper standard. Arguably, it was believed that the state had a greater fear that in doing otherwise, it might significantly compromise their capability to collect critical data from Padilla and further to prevent him from gaining any opportunity to communicate with the rest of the Qaeda operatives who might be operating in the US.
Lower courts’ and the U.S. Supreme Court’s argument and reasoning
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
In the District case, Judge Robert G. Doumar came to a conclusion that his father as an appropriate ‘next friend’ was able to sue on behalf of Hamdi and further demanded that Hamdi is provided with the public defender. After the appeal had been filed, the Fourth Circuit reversed the ruling by the District Court claiming that it had considerably failed to provide appropriate proceed with the properly deferential investigation (Martinez, 2004). The District Court rejected the motion of the government to dismiss the petition and further, Judge Doumar established asserted that the state’s substantiation in support of the confinement of Hamdi "woefully inadequate," and that it was founded predominantly on hearsay and unfound assertion. The Court went further to ask that the government provide adequate evidence that might allow them to carry out “meaningful judicial review." After the petition was denied, by the Fourth Circuit for rehearing en banc, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court that later provided certiorari review in addition to this, the ruling by the Fourth Circuit was reversed (Martinez, 2004).
Eight of the nine Supreme Court justices came to an agreement that the Executives had no exclusive power to indefinitely detain an American without having fundamental due process protections that can be enforced by judicial evaluation. Justice O’Connor came up with a detailed plurality opinion which clearly represented the judgment of the court (Keller & Forowicz, 2007). Despite the fact that the Congress had authorized for any enemy combatant to be detained in their authorization for the use of the Military Force introduced after the 9/11 attack, there was the need for Hamdi to have a meaningful chance to counter the status placed on him of the enemy combatant (Martinez, 2004). Justice O'Connor went further to state that there was the need for a charge notice and a chance for Hamdi to be heard, however, with the ongoing military conflict upon the executives, procedural protection such as the ban on hearsay or even placement of the burden of proof on the government should never be applied.
O'Connor also proposed that the Department of Defense should be able to establish what he defined as a fact-finding tribunal that would help in the determination of whether an individual being detained merit continued detention as an enemy combatant. It also concluded that Hamdi had the legal right to counsel about a remand proceeding (Martinez, 2004). Further, the plurality agreed that it was important for the judges not to participate in the reviewing of the case and further, there was the need to have an impartial decision maker. The plurality went further to assert that the Judiciary ought not to defer to the Executives as far as detention is concerned, and in its place, the Judiciary must function to check the Executive power within this realm.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Donna Newman represented Padilla at the time he was detained as a ‘material witness’ therefore, he applied for a petition for habeas corpus. The Southern District of New York’s District Court came up with a judgment that Donna had standing when it comes to filing a petition even when Padilla was moved to South Carolina’s military brig (Olson, 2017). Further, the court held that, as the Commander-in-Chief, the president of the US had a constitutional power to designate any US citizen arrested on American soil as ‘enemy combatant.’ further, it was determined that the statutory authorization that was offered by the Congress's Authorization for the use of Military Force has absolute authority to confine Padilla as an 'enemy combatant indefinitely.’
According to Keller & Forowicz, (2007), the petition was thus denied by the district judge and an argument that Newman had put forward that federal Non-Detention Act explicitly prohibits Padilla’s detention was rejected. After the appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal panel which was at that time highly divided ruled the case by reversing the ruling by the district court (Olson, 2017). This panel, therefore, agreed that Authorization for the use of Military force applied failed to attain the Non-Detention Act’s requirement. Further, they went on to state that the president had no authority to declare the Americans who have been arrested outside the combatant zone as the ‘enemy combatant.’
Similarities between Rumsfeld v. Padilla and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case and their impact on the civil rights and criminal justice system
In the two cases, Rumsfeld v. Padilla and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, it is clear that the two individuals who were the citizens of the US were held by the military in the US without any due process of charges as the ‘enemy combatants.’ In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the government of the US for the first time stated that the dispute clearly presented a non-justiciable political question; however, this assertion was strongly rebuked by both the Fourth Circuit and the district courts (Martinez, 2004). Fourth Circuit went further to uphold the detention of Hamdi based on the sole unchallenged affidavit that led to Hamdi to pursue certiorari. January 9, observers were surprised further by the court’s ruling where it granted certiorari over the state’s strict objection. According to Martinez (2004), it is evident that the Court was impelled to give certiorari in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was the Second Circuit’s decision, in the other “enemy combatant” Rumsfeld v. Padilla case. In the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the court, therefore, was forced to restrain the Executive assertions of authority concerning the war on terror. The court went further to state that despite the fact that the Congress had authorized the combatant’s detention, there is the need to have a due process and further they should be given a meaningful day in court to contest their detention.
Focusing on the Padilla’s case, the panel was divided and distinguished the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hamdi based on where Padilla was arrested. Padilla’s detention case was therefore prohibited based on the on-Detention Act (Olson, 2017). It has been established that Padilla’s case was one of the unique cases in the American history because it brought out significant dynamics within the US’s constitutional government. There were allegations that Padilla was one of the members of a terrorist organization that was operating in the US and whose majority of the American viewed with greater distrust and anger (Keller & Forowicz, 2007). However, Padilla’s legal claims heartily received a well thought out, and deeper analysis and further, the case was scrutinized and approached not necessarily in the light of his clause or American’s opinion by the statutory and constitutional a validity of the power invoked against him.
Irrespective of the fact that the Supreme Court had held a traditional tendency to strictly abstain from any form of interference with the Executive’s decision in wartime decision, it can be argued that the post 9/11 Court strongly had affirmed its unwillingness to continue following this direction further (Keller & Forowicz, 2007). From the two cases, we see how the court attempted to substantially limit the power and authority of the president and the government not mandated by Congress in the war on terror. Further, the Supreme Court rejected any form of acceptance of the state’s argument that an individual who has been designated as an enemy combatant should be detained indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay (Martinez, 2004). Rumsfeld v. Padilla and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld cases further constitute encouraging occurrences within their quest of the Supreme Court to restore the rule of law in addition to the due process among the detainees. The case, therefore, laid a foundation for the Supreme Court to begin interpreting the executive war powers narrowly and at the same time place more interventions in circumstances where the national security are at stake. Therefore, to efficiently balance the civil rights and the national security demands, the Supreme Court has seen the need to apply a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to the evaluation of various arguments that have been presented by the Executive (Olson, 2017).
The two cases significantly transformed the justice system concerning criminal justice system and individuals' civil rights. Hamdi and Padilla cases saw justice being delivered to people. The ruling on the two cases was relatively modest to the two Americans but at the same time a rebuke to the government of the US. Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion played a greater role where it influenced the lower court’s ruling that led to the release of Hamdi. The cases pointed towards the direction that even the government should work strictly per the law of the country (Keller & Forowicz, 2007). Today, it has been agreed that the president or the government does not necessarily have the ultimate authority under Article II of the US law to capture and hold an individual indefinitely as an ‘enemy combatant’ seized on the US soil beyond the combat region with no comprehensible congressional approval.
Conclusion
The essay has critically analyzed and evaluated Padilla v. Rumsfeld and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld cases and decision made by the court. Arguably, the two cases share numerous factors, and at the same time, they have distinct differences. It is clear that the two have significantly brought greater transformation in the criminal justice system and individuals' civil rights.
References
Keller, H., & Forowicz, M. (2007). A new era for the Supreme Court after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? . Kohlhammer.
Martinez, J. S. (2004). Hamdi V. Rumsfeld. 124 S. Ct. 2633. American Journal of International Law , 782-788.
Olson, T. (2017). FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. . Findlaw . Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/426.html
