Hamdan V. Rumsfeld - The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court's Decision

On 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case. The petition was filed on behalf of Hamdan by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Seattle University School of Law alumnus Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy. Seattle law firm, Perkins Coie provided the additional legal counsel for Hamdan.

The case was argued before the court on 28 March 2006. Katyal argued on behalf of Hamdan, and Paul Clement, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued on behalf of the government. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had previously ruled on this case as part of the three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Critics called for Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, since he had made allegedly improper comments about the decision of the case prior to hearing oral arguments ("I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy") but he chose not to do so.

The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.

Read more about this topic:  Hamdan V. Rumsfeld

Famous quotes containing the words supreme, court and/or decision:

    ... the outcome of the Clarence Thomas hearings and his subsequent appointment to the Supreme Court shows how misguided, narrow notions of racial solidarity that suppress dissent and critique can lead black folks to support individuals who will not protect their rights.
    bell hooks (b. c. 1955)

    We should have learnt by now that laws and court decisions can only point the way. They can establish criteria of right and wrong. And they can provide a basis for rooting out the evils of bigotry and racism. But they cannot wipe away centuries of oppression and injustice—however much we might desire it.
    Hubert H. Humphrey (1911–1978)

    Will mankind never learn that policy is not morality,—that it never secures any moral right, but considers merely what is expedient? chooses the available candidate,—who is invariably the devil,—and what right have his constituents to be surprised, because the devil does not behave like an angel of light? What is wanted is men, not of policy, but of probity,—who recognize a higher law than the Constitution, or the decision of the majority.
    Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)