Rumsfeld v. Padilla: The case that never could

In the case of Rumsfeld v. Padilla involves a very controversial issue (Facts). But first we have to clarify the state the country was at this time. On September 11 2001 al-Qaeda took responsibility for taking over commercial airplanes and crashing them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Sense this horrific event much like the red scare the U.S. has been in a witch hunt for terrorists. This witch hunt has caused invasion on personal privacy and human rights. With the use of the patriot act and the war on terror claiming people to be “Enemy Combatants” is a way to state people are prisoners of an enemy yet not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Now, In May 8, 2002 José Padilla came home to Chicago from Pakistan to O’Hare Airport. Once he exited the aircraft he was detained by federal agents executing a “material witness” warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. When Padilla was first detained he was considered a “material witness” as stated in his arrest warrant, which gave him access to an attorney named Donna Newman. However his status changed from “material witness” to “enemy combatant” where he has no access to an attorney and no legal access to courts, allowing for him to be placed into prison.

When José was titled as “enemy combatant” his lawyer Donna Newman filed for “habeas corpus” on his behalf and habeas corpus means it is “a judicial mandate requiring that a prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the government has the right to continue detaining them” (Habeas Corpus). However at this time habeas corpus was suspended in accordance to Article One of the Constitution, the right to a writ of habeas corpus can only is suspended "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety” and sense we are currently having a war on terror, habeas corpus can be suspended. This brought forth the question does a U.S. citizen have the right to habeas corpus if he is not in the warzone, yet is an enemy of the state.

Anyhow the petition was filed for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was filed against Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. In response to this Padilla was secretly moved to a military brig in South Carolina and under the supervision of the Brig Commander (Secret). U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Newman’s petition had standing despite Padilla was moved out of New York’s jurisdiction to South Carolina, yet they also agreed the president had the power to detain Padilla as an “enemy combatant”.

However the District Judge rejected Donna Newman’s argument that the detention was prohibited by the federal Non-Detention Act (Non-Detention Act). This states that “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”. Though Newman continued on and had the case appealed. On appeal, a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel changed the district court's "enemy combatant" ruling. The panel found that the authorization for use of military force did not meet the requirement of the Non-Detention Act. Therefore the President could not declare American citizens captured outside a combat zone as “enemy combatants”. This pushed the case forward to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court focused on whether or not habeas corpus applies, not on weather Padilla was innocent. Now at this time the Supreme Court was divided on the issue with four liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, finding that an exception should be made to the jurisdictional rule because the government had moved Padilla to South Carolina without giving his attorney Newman notice to re-file the habeas writ.

The four conservative Justices Thomas, Scalia, O’Connor, and Rehnquist voted for the majority. The Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist answered the question by not answering the question the Court found that the case had been improperly filed. Under federal law, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus can only be filed against the person directly responsible for a prisoner's confinement which would be the military brig commander and filed in South Carolina. Instead Newman listed Rumsfeld as the defendant and the suit was filed in New York which is out of jurisdiction. The audio of the case is on this hyperlink (The Case).

Then there was one swing vote Kennedy who leans on conservative side usually. He wrote a concurrence which sided with the majority it valued the venue of habeas corpus and how it needs to be filed in the proper jurisdiction (Venue) so instead of it being filed in New York it should have been filed in South Carolina. They dismissed the case on that note and Newman has to re-file the habeas corpus writ.

Personally on this case I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. There ruling to dismiss the case and allow Newman to re-file the case was the best course of action. That way Newman can re-file the habeas corpus writ under the right jurisdiction and person. And because Padilla was moved in secrecy the Supreme Court allows refilling to happen. I agree with Kennedy as well in venue matters first and the fact the venue was wrong simple re filling can fix that. However Padilla should be allowed the constitutional right to habeas corpus for he is an American citizen. It is our constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore once the filling is correct and proper, habeas corpus should be given to Padilla and he should stand trial for his implemented crimes. Whether he is guilty or not he should be allowed to stand trial as it is his American right.