Opinion of the Court Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

1 opinion of court

1.1 plurality opinion
1.2 souter concurrence
1.3 scalia dissent
1.4 thomas dissent

opinion of court

though no single opinion of court commanded majority, 8 of 9 justices of court agreed executive branch not have power hold u.s. citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

plurality opinion

justice o connor wrote plurality opinion representing court s judgment, joined chief justice rehnquist , justices breyer , kennedy. o connor wrote although congress had expressly authorized detention of enemy combatants in authorization use of military force (aumf) passed after 9/11, due process required hamdi have meaningful opportunity challenge enemy combatant status.

justice o connor used three-part test of mathews v. eldridge limit due process received. required notice of charges , opportunity heard, though because of burden of ongoing military conflict upon executive, normal procedural protections, such placing burden of proof on government or ban on hearsay, need not apply. o connor suggested department of defense create fact-finding tribunals similar ar 190-8 determine whether detainee merited continued detention enemy combatant.

in response, united states department of defense created combatant status review tribunals, modeling them after ar 190-8. o connor did not write @ length on hamdi s right attorney, because time court rendered decision, hamdi had been granted access one. o connor wrote hamdi unquestionably has right access counsel in connection proceedings on remand. plurality held judges need not involved in reviewing these cases, rather impartial decision maker required. justice o connor limited reach of court’s conclusion regarding executive authority detain enemy combatants:

the plurality asserted judiciary must not defer executive respect detentions. instead constitution empowers judiciary act check on executive power in realm. justice o connor wrote:

souter concurrence

justice david souter, joined justice ruth bader ginsburg, concurred plurality s judgment due process protections must available hamdi challenge status , detention, providing majority part of ruling. however, dissented plurality s ruling aumf established congressional authorization detention of enemy combatants.

scalia dissent

justice antonin scalia s dissent, joined justice john paul stevens, went furthest in restricting executive power of detention. scalia asserted based on historical precedent, government had 2 options detain hamdi: either congress must suspend right habeas corpus, or hamdi must tried under normal criminal law. scalia wrote plurality, though well-meaning, had no basis in law trying establish new procedures applicable in challenge hamdi s detention - job of court declare unconstitutional , order release or proper arrest, rather invent acceptable process detention.

thomas dissent

justice clarence thomas justice sided entirely executive branch , fourth circuit s ruling, based on view of security interests @ stake , president s broad war-making powers. thomas wrote court s rationale require due process rights bombing targets: because decision bomb particular target might extinguish life interests, plurality’s analysis seems require notice potential targets. thomas wrote congress intended aumf authorized such detentions. thomas later make use of dissent in turner v. rogers in 2011.