Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case, in which José Padilla, an American citizen, sought habeas corpus relief against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as a result of his detention by the military as an "unlawful combatant."
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 542 of the United States ... Rumsfeld v. Padilla: 542 U.S. 426: 2004: Rasul v. Bush: 542 U.S ...
On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal. The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28, 2004, the court dismissed the petition on technical grounds because It was improperly filed in federal court in New York instead of South Carolina, where Padilla was being detained.
On 28 June 2004, the Supreme Court decided against the Government in Rasul v. Bush. [5] Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a five-justice majority, held that the detainees had a statutory right to petition federal courts for habeas review. [6] That same day, the Supreme Court ruled against the Government in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. [7]
Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly. Justices frequently join multiple opinions in a single case; each vote is subdivided accordingly. An asterisk ( * ) in the Court's opinion denotes that it was only a majority in part or a plurality.
May 14—The New Mexico Supreme Court will decide whether to reaffirm a former state Cabinet secretary's convictions in a yearslong corruption case or uphold an appeals court's reversal based on ...
The decision by the Supreme Court judges to join the work stoppage has never happened before in the institution's history, according to a Sup. MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Mexico's lower house of ...
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.