Rumsfeld v. Padilla
- Decided
- June 28, 2004
- Docket
- 03-1027
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,215 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the proper respondent in a habeas action is the petitioner's “immediate custodian” at the time of filing — Anderson v. Warden, FPC Pensacola (2023)
- holding that the proper respondent in a habeas action is the petitioner's “immediate custodian” at the time of filing — Anderson v. Warden, FPC Pensacola (2023)
- holding that the default rule is that petitioner’s current custodian is the proper respondent 22 in habeas cases — Kalim Sibomana v. Chestnut (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*430] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent Jose Padilla is a United States citizen detained by the Department of Defense pursuant to the President’s determination that he is an “enemy combatant” who conspired with al Qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. We confront two questions: First, did Padilla properly file his habeas petition in the Southern District of New York; and second, did the President possess authority to detain Padilla militarily. We answer the threshold question in the negative and thus do not reach the second question presented.
Because we do not decide the merits, we only briefly recount the relevant facts. On May 8, 2002, Padilla flew, from Pakistan to Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. As he stepped off the plane, Padilla was apprehended by federal agents executing a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of [*431] New York (Southern District) in connection with its grand jury investigation into the September 11th terrorist attacks. Padilla was then transported to New York, where he was held in federal criminal custody. On May 22, acting through appointed counsel, Padilla moved to vacate the material witness warrant.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.