On the other hand Padilla's attorneys argued that the fact that he was arrested on American soil gave his the rights and protections guaranteed American citizens under the Constitution, mainly a civilian trial. Padilla's lawyers argued that in the case of Hamdi, he was captured on foreign soil, not in America and therefore there was a difference. However, the U.S. countered that an old W.W. II case found that even an American citizen, detained on U.S. soil, could be transferred into the custody of the military if he was found to be an enemy combatant, as Padilla was. Next, his lawyers argued that Padilla's detention by the military was not "necessary nor appropriate' because he is amenable to criminal prosecution." (Padilla v. Hanft) They also attempted to claim the old W.W. II case stated that Padilla could not be detained without a clear statement from the Congress of the United States, which was not issued. And finally Padilla's attorney pulled out an even older case from the American Civil War that held that non-military anti-Unionists could not be subject to military tribunals, but instead had to be tried in civilian...

Whether he was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan or at an airport in Chicago, even though Jose Padilla was an American citizen, he was also an enemy combatant. The court decided that the AUMF was a constitutional law and the President was legally exercising his authority, and therefore it was perfectly legal for Jose Padilla to be held in military detention.