By: Carol Jabor-Smith
Date: September 18, 2006

On Thursday, September 21, from 5:00 until 6:30 p.m. in Law School room 121, Professors Patricia Bellia, Jimmy Gurulé, and Mary Ellen O’Connell of the Law School will discuss the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Law School’s Federalist Society, American Constitution Society, International Human Rights Society, International Law Society, and Center for Civil and Human Rights are cosponsoring the discussion. This event is free and open to the public; light refreshments will be served at the event’s conclusion.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court’s decision ended a series of closely-watched United States District Court and Court of Appeals rulings.

Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a citizen of Yeman who served as a driver for Osama bin Laden; Hamden was captured during the invasion of Afghanistan and detained by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. In July 2004, Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. The Bush administration was to try him before a military commission.

Hamdan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was being held without due process. The Combatant Status Review Tribunal granted him a review and determined that he was eligible for detention.

Upon review of Hamdan’s habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan’s favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war. His decision was then overturned by a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel. It found that the United States president has the constitutional authority to try Hamdan because Congress authorized such activity by statute, that the Geneva Convention does not confer individual rights and remedies because it is a treaty between nations , and that, even if the Geneva Convention could be enforced in United States courts, a conflict such as the war against al Qaeda is not one between nations, and thus only guarantees a certain standard of judicial procedure rather than judicial enforcement.

In November of 2005, the Supreme Court issued notice that it would hear the case. The petition asking it to do so had been filed on Hamdan’s behalf by Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Lt. Commander Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy, an alumnus of the Seattle University School of Law. The case was argued before the Court on May 28, 2006.

On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the federal government did not have the authority to establish special military commissions, and that the special military commissions were illegal under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.

This ruling could prove to have several long-term implications: first, other detainees being held at various facilities may use this ruling to challenge their treatment. Second, the decision may prove to have implications for other disputes relating to the extent of executive power. The panel will discuss these implications and others the ruling may have on various areas of the law.

Click here to go to video of discussion.

More Faculty in the News