Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that foreign nationals held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention. [1]
On November 13, 2001 U.S. President George W. Bush issued a military order titled Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. [1] The order: Defines which individuals the President considers subject to the order. States that the U.S. Secretary of Defense will be ultimately responsible for the individuals.
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."
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.
[4] [5] 13990 [6] 3 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements: January 25, 2017 January 30, 2017 82 FR 8793 2017-02095 [7] [8] 14010 [9] 4 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States [a] 82 FR 8799 2017-02102 [22] [23] 13993 [24] 5 13769: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — A trio of appellate court judges in Springfield ordered a new detention hearing for a woman who was charged with a deadly 2023 stabbing. The decision, handed down Sept. 24 ...
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a statute requiring suspects to disclose their names during a valid Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first requires reasonable suspicion of criminal involvement, and does not violate the Fifth Amendment if there is no ...