This paper analyzes the legal journey of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 and designated an "enemy combatant" by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The paper traces Padilla's case from his initial detention without charges through the Supreme Court's ruling in Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal in Padilla v. Hanft (2005), and the eventual mooting of his certiorari petition. Central constitutional issues examined include habeas corpus rights, due process protections for American citizens, executive wartime authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and the tension between national security and civil liberties.
In the understandable, albeit alarmist, wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center's twin towers, a United States citizen named Jose Padilla was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare International Airport. Federal Bureau of Investigation officers executed a material witness arrest warrant against him, and he was subsequently transported to jail in New York. Without being charged with any particular crime — as United States citizens are required to be under their due process constitutional rights — Padilla was nonetheless held indefinitely as a material witness in the investigation of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (UCLA, 2006).
In June of 2002, then-President George W. Bush issued a presidential order designating Padilla as an "enemy combatant," which effectively stripped away his civil rights as an American citizen. Padilla's custody was subsequently transferred to the Department of Defense, which moved him to a high-security military brig in South Carolina. His appointed counsel had not been given prior notice of the transfer and immediately filed a writ of habeas corpus. Yet the United States government continued to hold Padilla for years with no formal charges filed against him, and without even allowing his attorney to make regular personal visits.
Not surprisingly, the case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), sought habeas corpus relief against then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Curiously, the High Court held that Padilla's writ of habeas corpus had been filed in the wrong court. The Court ruled instead that the habeas petition should have been properly filed with the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, since Padilla was not being held as a civilian but rather in a military brig (430).
Two years later, Padilla's counsel filed a new writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court of South Carolina. That court ultimately ruled that Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress nor by the Constitution of the United States and was therefore unlawful. The federal government appealed this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The American Civil Liberties Union (2006) filed an amicus brief supporting Padilla, arguing that the indefinite detention violated his right to due process under the law as an American citizen.
"Fourth Circuit reverses, upholds presidential detention authority"
In essence, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and opined — not without controversy — that then-President George W. Bush was acting within his constitutional powers in holding Padilla without charges indefinitely as a so-called "enemy combatant." The case remains a landmark, and deeply contested, episode in the ongoing debate over the balance between civil liberties and national security in the United States.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.