Padilla v. Rumsfeld
352 F.3d 695 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The President does not possess inherent constitutional authority under Article II to detain a U.S. citizen seized on American soil outside a zone of combat as an enemy combatant. Such detentions are prohibited by the Non-Detention Act (18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)) unless Congress provides clear and specific statutory authorization.
Facts:
- Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, flew from Pakistan to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002.
- Upon his arrival, FBI agents arrested Padilla under a material witness warrant related to the grand jury investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
- Padilla was transported to New York and held in a civilian maximum-security federal correctional facility.
- The government alleged Padilla was closely associated with al Qaeda and had returned to the U.S. to conduct reconnaissance for terrorist attacks, including a plan to detonate a 'dirty bomb'.
- On June 9, 2002, the President of the United States issued an order designating Padilla an 'enemy combatant'.
- Following the President's order, Department of Defense personnel took Padilla into custody from the civilian facility and transported him to a Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.
- In military custody, Padilla was held incommunicado, without access to his attorney or family.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago on a material witness warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- An attorney, Donna R. Newman, Esq., was appointed to represent Padilla in the Southern District of New York.
- Newman filed a motion in the district court to vacate the material witness warrant.
- Before a decision on the motion, the government withdrew the warrant, and the President issued an order designating Padilla an enemy combatant.
- Newman, as 'next friend,' filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a respondent.
- The government moved to dismiss the petition, arguing Newman lacked standing, Rumsfeld was not a proper respondent, and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The District Court (Chief Judge Mukasey) denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Newman had standing and the court had jurisdiction over Rumsfeld.
- On the merits, the District Court held that the President had authority to detain Padilla but that Padilla was entitled to consult with his counsel.
- The District Court certified its orders for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President have the authority under Article II of the Constitution to detain a U.S. citizen, captured on U.S. soil outside a zone of combat, as an enemy combatant?
Opinions:
Majority - Pooler and B.D. Parker, Jr., Circuit Judges
No. The President does not have the authority to detain a U.S. citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant without explicit congressional authorization. The President's exercise of power falls into the third category of the Youngstown framework, where his authority is at its 'lowest ebb' because it is incompatible with the express will of Congress. The Non-Detention Act (18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)) explicitly forbids the detention of any U.S. citizen except 'pursuant to an Act of Congress.' The court found this prohibition applies to military as well as civilian detentions. The post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Joint Resolution does not constitute the specific authorization required by the Non-Detention Act, as it contains no language authorizing the detention of U.S. citizens captured domestically. Citing Ex parte Endo, the court reasoned that any legislative grant of power to restrain a citizen's liberty must be 'clearly and unmistakably' stated. Furthermore, the President's inherent Commander-in-Chief powers do not extend to ordering such detentions domestically, as the Constitution allocates powers related to domestic order, such as suspending habeas corpus, to Congress. The circumstances are distinguished from Ex parte Quirin, where Congress had authorized military tribunals, and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where the citizen was captured on a foreign battlefield.
Dissenting-in-part - Wesley, Circuit Judge
Yes. The President has both inherent constitutional authority and congressional authorization to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the inherent authority to thwart acts of belligerency on U.S. soil that threaten citizens, a power recognized in The Prize Cases. This situation is directly tied to national security, unlike the domestic labor dispute in Youngstown. Even if inherent authority were insufficient, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Joint Resolution provides express congressional authorization. The AUMF's grant to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' to prevent future terrorist attacks logically includes the detention of enemy operatives, regardless of their citizenship or where they are captured. To suggest Congress authorized lethal force but not detention is illogical. If the Non-Detention Act were interpreted to be an 'impenetrable barrier' to this necessary executive action, the Act itself would be an unconstitutional infringement on the President's Article II powers.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant check on executive power during the War on Terror, drawing a firm line between the President's authority over citizens captured on foreign battlefields and those arrested within the United States. By giving full force to the Non-Detention Act, the court reaffirmed Congress's primary role in authorizing any deprivation of a citizen's liberty on domestic soil. The ruling created a circuit split with the Fourth Circuit's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, setting the stage for Supreme Court review of the fundamental balance between national security and individual constitutional rights for U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants.
Unlock the full brief for Padilla v. Rumsfeld