Understanding Terrorism Cases
Rumsfeld v. Padilla 2004 - Current Cases
On May 8, 2002, Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was taken into custody in New York City pursuant to a material witness warrant ordering him to appear before a Southern District of New York grand jury that was investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. A material witness warrant is a warrant signed by a judge authorizing a person to be taken into custody to ensure that he/she testifies about a given matter (usually of some importance); it does not necessarily mean that the individual is accused of committing a crime.
On May 22, 2002, President Bush, acting in accordance with his role as Commander-in-Chief and pursuant to the AUMF, commanded Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to change Padilla's status to that of enemy combatant. The government then asked that Padilla's involvement in the grand jury proceedings be judicially terminated so that he could be sent to a brig (military prison) in Charleston, South Carolina, as an enemy combatant. Padilla was not given the opportunity to contest his status as an enemy combatant and subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the location of the grand jury investigation), challenging the legality of his confinement. He questioned whether the President had the authority to order him detained by the military.
After making its way through the federal judicial system, Padilla's case arrived at the Supreme Court. The Court, however, did not address the merits of the case. Instead, it ruled that his petition had been improperly filed. First, the Court ruled that the commander of the brig, and not Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, was the proper person to be named as the defendant. Second, it said that the court where his petition should have been filed was the District Court for the District of South Carolina (the district in which he was being held in custody), not the Southern District of New York (the district where the grand jury investigation was being held). The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court, giving Padilla the opportunity to remedy these problems and challenge his confinement once again.
Facts
Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was taken into custody pursuant to a material witness warrant. While in custody, President Bush, relying on his authority as Commander-in-Chief and Congress' AUMF, ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to label Padilla an enemy combatant and detain him. Padilla was detained at a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. He filed for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of the President's order to confine him. He named Secretary Rumsfeld the defendant in the suit. The government argued that the proceedings were flawed, since Padilla incorrectly named Secretary Rumsfeld and not the commander of the brig in which he was detained as the defendant in this case. Moreover, the government argued that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (the district in which Padilla was being detained), not the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the district in which the grand jury proceedings that Padilla was expected to testify before were being held).
Issues (2)
(1) Is Secretary Rumsfeld the proper defendant in this case, and was the petition filed in the correct court?
(2) Does President Bush have the authority to order Padilla confined, either through his position as Commander-in-Chief or pursuant to Congress' Authorization for the Use of Military Force?
Ruling (5-4)
(1) No (naming the correct defendant); No (filing the petition in the correct court).
(2) Due to the Court's answering the first question in the negative, it did not decide the second question.
Reasoning:
Writing the Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that in habeas corpus proceedings, the defendant must be the person who actually has custody of the petitioner. In this case, the person is the commander of the military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, and not Secretary Rumsfeld. Moreover, the Court noted that since Padilla was being detained in Charleston, South Carolina, and not New York City, New York, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina was the correct court for filing the writ of habeas corpus. Since the Court determined that Padilla did not follow proper procedures in filing for the writ, it did not decide the main question. Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined this opinion. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion that Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined.
General Discussion Starters
1. The Supreme Court ruled that this case was improperly filed. What do you think is more important, the proper filing of a case or its merits? If the answer is the filing, are there any times when exceptions should be made (see Justice Steven's dissent for a discussion of exceptions to the stringency of the filing rule). Why or why not?
2. What are your feelings about material witness warrants? Why do you think that certain people are taken into custody when they have information that is deemed important? Should people be able to challenge their confinement as material witnesses by filing for a writ of habeas corpus?
3. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Jose Padilla's case. How would you rule on the merits if you were a judge or justice and this case properly came before your court? Explain your reasoning.
- From the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763.
|
