Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
Read a random definition: investigating magistrate
A quick definition of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004):
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) was a case in the United States Supreme Court. The case was about a man named Hamdi who was an American citizen and was put into confinement at Guantanamo Bay by the government. The Court ruled that even people who are detained as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker. This means that even in times of war, citizens have the right to know why they are being held and have a fair chance to prove that they should not be held.
A more thorough explanation:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, is a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right of people detained as enemy combatants to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker.
For example, in the case, an American citizen named Hamdi was designated as an "enemy combatant" by the government and placed into indefinite confinement at Guantanamo Bay. The Court of Appeals ruled against Hamdi, but the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and held that even citizens declared as "enemy combatant" have due process rights.
This means that even in times of war, the country must uphold its values and the privileges of citizenship. Citizens declared as "enemy combatant" have the right to know the factual basis for their classification and to have a fair opportunity to challenge the government's assertions before a neutral decision maker.
This case is important because it established that even in times of war, the government must respect the constitutional rights of its citizens and provide them with due process. It also highlights the importance of having a neutral decision maker to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.