542 U.S. 507, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004)
Yaser Esam Hamdi, a United States citizen born in Louisiana in 1980, moved with his family to Saudi Arabia as a child and resided in Afghanistan by 2001.1 Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed approximately 3,000 people, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force one week later.2 Hamdi was seized by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan during the ensuing conflict and turned over to United States military authorities, who initially detained and interrogated him in Afghanistan before transferring him to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in January 2002; upon learning of his American citizenship, authorities moved him to a naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia, and later to Charleston, South Carolina.3
In June 2002, Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of his son, alleging that the Government had held Hamdi without access to legal counsel or notice of any charges and that the detention violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.4 The district court found the father a proper next friend, appointed the federal public defender as counsel, and ordered access to Hamdi, but the Fourth Circuit reversed that order and directed a more deferential inquiry on remand. The Government then submitted the Mobbs Declaration, a sworn statement from a Defense Department official describing Hamdi's travel to Afghanistan in July or August 2001, his affiliation with a Taliban military unit, receipt of weapons training, surrender of a Kalashnikov rifle to Northern Alliance forces, and classification as an enemy combatant based on interviews and association with the Taliban.
The district court found the Mobbs Declaration fell far short of supporting the detention, criticized its generic and hearsay nature, and ordered the Government to produce additional materials including copies of Hamdi's statements, interview notes, lists of interrogators, and records of capture and detention for in camera review.5 The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that because it was undisputed Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat no further factual inquiry or evidentiary hearing was necessary or proper, that the Mobbs Declaration provided a sufficient basis for detention, and that the district court's inquiry went beyond the acceptable scope of review; the Fourth Circuit denied rehearing en banc and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia dissented on the ground that the Government had not charged Hamdi with any crime and that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.6 He maintained that the Government's assertion of authority to detain a citizen indefinitely without charge or trial violates the Constitution and would reverse the judgment below. Scalia emphasized that citizens accused of waging war against the United States have historically been prosecuted in federal court for treason or other crimes rather than held under military authority absent suspension of the writ.
Justice Thomas dissented on the ground that the Executive has the authority to detain enemy combatants, including United States citizens, during wartime.7 He argued that the judiciary has no role to play in second-guessing the Executive's determination that an individual is an enemy combatant and that the plurality's balancing test is inappropriate in the context of national security. Thomas would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals because the President's action is supported by the strongest presumptions when exercised pursuant to express or implied congressional authorization.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized because the Government failed to carry its burden of showing that the detention is authorized by the AUMF.8 He maintained that the AUMF does not clearly authorize indefinite detention of a citizen and would reverse the decision below with instructions to order Hamdi's release. Souter joined the plurality only to the extent that it required a meaningful opportunity for Hamdi to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Souter concluded that the Government failed to demonstrate that the Force Resolution authorizes the detention complained of here even on the facts the Government claims. He maintained that under a robust reading of § 4001(a) requiring a clear statement of authorization to detain, none of the Government's arguments suffices to justify Hamdi's detention. Souter would vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for proceedings consistent with his view that the Non-Detention Act entitles Hamdi to be released.