Syllabus: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense, Et Al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (No. 05-184. Argued March 28, 2006 — Decided June 29, 2006)

Pursuant to Congress ? Joint Resolution authorizing the President to ?use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided? the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF), US Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hostilities, in 2001, militia forces captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the US military, which, in 2002, transported him to prison in Guant?namo Bay, Cuba. Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was charged with conspiracy ?to commit...offences triable by military commission.? In habeas and mandamus petitions, Hamdan asserted that the military commission lacks authority to try him because (1) neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for conspiracy, an offence that, Hamdan says, is not a violation of the law of war; and (2) the procedures adopted to try him violate basic tenets of military and international law, including the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him.

The District Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission?s proceedings, concluding that the President?s authority to establish military commissions extends only to offenders or offences triable by such a commission under the law of war; that such law includes the Third Geneva Convention; that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention?s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 USC ?801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear. The DC Circuit reversed. Although it declined the Government?s invitation to abstain from considering Hamdan?s challenge, cf. Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, the appeals court ruled, on the merits, that Hamdan was not entitled to relief because the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable. The court also concluded that Ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1, foreclosed any separation-of-powers objection to the military commission?s jurisdiction, and that Hamdan?s trial before the commission would violate neither the UCMJ nor Armed Forces regulations implementing the Geneva Conventions.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

415 F. 3d 33, reversed and remanded.

JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts V and VI?D?iv, concluding:

1. The Government?s motion to dismiss, based on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), is denied. DTA ?1005(e)(1) provides that ?no court...shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider...an application for...habeas corpus filed by...an alien detained...at Guantanamo Bay.? Section 1005(h)(2) provides that ??1005(e)(2) and (3) ? which give the DC Circuit ?exclusive? jurisdiction to review the final decisions of, respectively, combatant status review tribunals and military commissions ? ?shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is...pending on? the DTA?s effective date, as was Hamdan?s case.