Citation: Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)
Facts: Salim Ahmed Hamdan (defendant) was captured, during the operations in Afghanistan, by U.S. Forces and transferred to a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. Hamdan initially held under the authority of the President exercised by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Hamdan, after being held for two years was indicted for “conspiracy to commit offenses connected with the attacks of September 11, 2001.” Hamdan adjured for a writ of habeas corpus, questioning the authority of the military commissions to try him; the Supreme Court conceded certiorari. Furthermore, they considered whether the military commissions’ structure and procedures violated the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Moreover, the Supreme Court focused on interpreting Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Procedural History: A U.S. …show more content…
Nevertheless, the Court's opinion stands for two central ideas. First, Article 36(a) delegate’s broad authority to create procedures for military commissions and the President cannot set aside or interpret laws of Congress under claims of 'inherent authority'. Second, the President does not have unrestricted ability to interpret such treaties as he chooses. Furthermore, treaties that are ratified by the Senate constrain executive power. However, the Supreme Court gave no complaisance to the rulemaking by the President in Hamdan’s case. Furthermore, Article 36(b) uses the verbiage “insofar as practicable” rather than Article 36(a)’s verbiage “so far as he considers practicable.” In addition, Hamdan could not present evidence that the courts, Congress, or the executive branch had previously believed this difference in