Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Definition - What does Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) mean?

The Supreme Court case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) was precedent-setting. It ruled that the U.S. Government has the right to detain anyone who it feels is an enemy combatant, even if that person is a U.S. citizen, without trial or access to an attorney and by the sole order of the president.

Normally, the Constitution would prohibit a citizen from being held without legal representation and due process.

Justipedia explains Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

The case supported the authority that was vested in the president to determine who might be an enemy combatant of the country.

As the plaintiff was picked up during a military sweep in the Middle East, and was purported to be holding a weapon at the time, he was automatically detained and sent to Guantanamo. He was later moved to other locations before being deported to Saudi Arabia, since he held dual citizenship but was born in the U.S.

Share this:

Connect with us

Find a Lawyer