Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Home » Find Laws » Cases Laws » Famous Trials » Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi V Rumsfeld

The Background of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

In 2001, the Defendant Yaser Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan in the midst of the military operations undertaken by the United States in that region. Although Hamdi was a citizen of the United States, he was apprehended while fighting alongside the Taliban – a faction considered to be an enemy of the United States; upon his apprehension, Hamdi was extradited to the United States and detained at a military prison within the State of Virginia. Within his apprehension, Hamdi claimed that he was denied legal counsel; Hamdi also claimed that he was being unlawfully detained:

Article II of the United States’ Constitution implements the separation of administrative jurisdiction, specifically outline the prohibition from any branch of the Federal government from infringing upon the protection and preservation of national security

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Hamdi – the protocol regarding American citizens classified as enemies of the United States

The Case Profile of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hamdi v. Rumsfeld’:

Date of the Trial: April 28th, 2004

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi against Donald H. Rumsfeld – acting as the Secretary of Defense of the United States - within the trial brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Hamdi accused the Federal Government of violating his 8th Amendment Rights, which entitle American Citizens to subjugation to due process; this not only requires a fair hearing to take place – in addition to the provision of legal counsel - but also provides protection against unlawful detainment

United States Reports Case Number: 542 U.S. 507

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 2004

Legal Venue of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case:

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi; Plaintiff(s) – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Donald H. Rumsfeld; Defendant - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that his arrest had violated the Due Process Clause outlined within the Constitution; this clause is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm. The ruling stated that Hamdi would be entitled to a fair trial in accordance with the 8th Amendment

Associated Legislation with regard to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld trial:

Subsequent to an arrest, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

NEXT: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Related Articles

Link To This Page


Find an CA Lawyer
Guide to Finding a Lawyer


Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier