Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Rasul v. Bush and Rumsfield v. Padilla

Rasul v. Bush and Rumsfeld v. Padilla

Erhan Sarica

on 3 December 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Rasul v. Bush and Rumsfield v. Padilla

Rasul v. Bush (2004) The Background of the Case Impact of the Case The Rulings of the Lower Courts Arguments of Both Sides The District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the government that the courts had no jurisdiction over the petitions and the case. The impact is that the Supreme Court did not clarify the rights of prisoners outside of the United States. This case states that the U.S. court system has the authority to decided if foreign prisoners are supposed to be imprisoned or not. The two Australian men that were captured were David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. Two British were captured as well, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal. They were transported to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to an American military base. 4 men were captured in Pakistan and Afganistan because these men were suspected of joining the Taliban forces when the United States' war on terror began. Rasul said that since he was not allowed to an attorny, have no access to a court, and couldn't petition for habeas corpus, then that violated the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. The U.S. Government said that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to take the case because the prisoners were not citizens of the United States and because they were being held outside of the United States in Cuba. The U.S. did not control Cuba. Rasul and the other three men filed petitions for habeas corpus, but the U.S. government said that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case. They made this decision by another court case that had happened 50 years earlier, which was Johnson v. Eisentrager. This case involved German citizens that were captured during World War II and were held in a United States prison in Germany. The courts ruled that they could not accept the petition of Habeas Corpus by German citizens. The Supreme Court's Decision David Hicks Mamdouh Habib Asif Iqbal Shafiq Rasul The Supreme Court decided to overturn the district court's ruling because the U.S. had enough control of Guantanamo Bay to give the right for foreign citizens to petition for habeas corpus. The voting was 6-3. Justice Stevens majority decision distinguished Eisentrager by noting that the petitioners "are not nationals of countries at war with the United States" and "deny that they have engaged in or plotted acts of aggression against the United States." Stevens also said that the petitioners here were imprisoned "in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive juridiction and control." Rumsfeld v. Padilla Jose Padilla arrested upon return from Pakistan May 2002 Declared enemy combatant
Material witness warrant Accused of plotting detonate nuclear bomb

Detained in military brig for more than 2 years

No charges, trials, counsel Filed for habeas corpus Rumsfeld- Secretary of Defense wanted to hold Padilla

believed he was a threat Decision

Court sided with Padilla

President doesn't have power to keep Padilla in military custody

Non-Detention Act

NO Americans captured outside combat zones Related Case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld-
dealt with treatment of enemy combatants non-citizen prisoners are protected by Geneva Conventions Court Cases Erhan Sarica
Dalton Lorance Supreme Court Cases Erhan Rasul v Bush Dalton Rumsfeld v. Padilla Related cases to Rasul v. Bush are Habib v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Dissent Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissented.

Justice Scalia dissented because the Court effected “a wrenching departure from precedent” and “[sprung] a trap on the Executive.” This means that the U.S. government went away from a 50 year precedent that was Johnson v. Eisentrager.
Full transcript