HamdiBrief[1] - Scott Welch Dr. Paul Fabrizio Supreme Court...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Scott Welch Dr. Paul Fabrizio Supreme Court and the Constitution December 11, 2006 1. Case Name. Yaser Esam Hamdi v. Donald Rumsfeld (542 U.S. 507) 2. Year Case Decided by Supreme Court. 2004 3. Facts that Triggered the Dispute. Mr. Hamdi is a United States Citizen who was being held in a Naval Brig in Norfolk, Virginia, without access to counsel for nearly two and a half years, even though he is not a member of any military unit. A lawyer petitioned, on his behalf, to have Mr. Hamdi’s rights to habeas corpus represented. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, granted Mr. Hamdi’s request and appointed a federal public defender to the case. Shortly thereafter, the United States appealed the ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court on the grounds that “the Federal Public Defender did not have a significant prior relationship with Hamdi so as to qualify as a ‘next friend.” (W.C. 8) In return, Mr. Hamdi’s father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a second writ of habeas on behalf of his son. The lower court again granted access for an attorney to meet with Mr. Hamdi. However, the respondents refused access and petitioned the appellate court for a stay in the denial of access previously recorded. The respondent’s petition was granted and the lower courts decision was overturned for the second time on the following basis, “without adequately considering [its] implications . . . and before allowing the United States even to respond [to the newly filed petition].” (W.C. 8) The
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
district court attempted one more time to intervene with the Hamdi case, and once again, the courts’ ruling was over turned by the Fourth Circuit Court. Upon this third attempt and failure, Mr. Hamdi filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. This case is a simple violation of basic citizen rights as protected in the United States Constitution. Mr. Hamdi has been held for over two and a half years without being seen by counsel, he has not been charged with any crime, and he has not had an opportunity to hear any evidence against him. This manner of detaining citizens of the United States indefinitely without bringing charges forward is a complete violation of the Constitution and what this country stands for. 4. Statute. There are three main statutory conflicts involved in this case. These conflicts between the Eastern Virginia District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court are the foundation for why this case is in front of the Justices today. The following precedence and understanding of past decisions explain these conflicts. First, in Howe v. Smith , 452 U.S. 473 (1981), shows precedence that the detention of any citizen of the United States is prohibited, unless there is an act of Congress which authorizes the detention. The Fourth Circuit has misinterpreted this precedence by interpreting the Joint Resolution Act to extend into matters of detention. Yet, there is absolutely no point in the Joint Resolution Act that explicitly details the detention of
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course POLI SCI taught by Professor Fabrizio during the Fall '05 term at McMurry.

Page1 / 10

HamdiBrief[1] - Scott Welch Dr. Paul Fabrizio Supreme Court...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online