Salim Hamdan, a former Yemeni driver for Bin Laden in Afghanistan, was captured by Afghan warlords and turned over to U.S. forces in late 2001. He was transported in June 2002 to Guantanamo Bay, then designated in 2003 as one of a small group of detainees to be tried before the military commission. In 2004, Hamdan was formally charged with conspiracy "to commit . . . offenses triable by military commission." In his petition, Hamdan sought to establish that his impending trial before a military commission was illegal. First, he argued that the commission's procedures improperly deviated from those that Congress established in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Second, he argued that conspiracy had never been accepted as a war crime and could not be unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Third, he argued that the provision potentially excluding defendants from the courtroom during certain parts of the trial made the process fundamentally unfair and violated Hamdan's right under the Geneva Conventions not to be sentenced except by a "regularly constituted tribunal." Hamdan named Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a defendant in his habeas corpus petition.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted his case, but, before the Court could hear it, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005, which prohibited courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions filed by or on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Government argued that the law applied to all petitions. Hamdan argued that it applied only to those petitions sought after December 30, 2005, the date that the law was enacted.
Issues
- Do the U.S. courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have the authority under DTA to hear habeas corpus petitions by Guantanamo Bay detainees that were filed before December 30, 2005?
- Is the military commission designated to try Salim Hamdan and others for war crimes illegal under relevant U.S. statutes and the Geneva Conventions?
Ruling (5-3)
Yes (to both questions).
Reasoning
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority/plurality of the Court, ruled that the DTA does not apply retroactively to pending habeas corpus petitions that were filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees before December 30, 2005. Had Congress intended the law to apply retroactively, it could have included a retroactivity clause, the Court noted. The Court also rejected the military's claim that the court should defer entering any judgment until after trial.
Reaching the merits of the case, the Court held that the commissions established by President Bush did not conform to the UCMJ's procedures for a military commission and were therefore illegal. The Court also noted that conspiracy was not a recognized war crime, and could not be made such without explicit Congressional authorization. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen G. Breyer maintained that the DTA provision allowing defendants to be excluded from the trial under certain circumstances violates Hamdan's right under the Geneva Convention to be tried by a "regularly constituted tribunal." In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy contended that the Court need not reach the question of whether an international treaty applies, because the commissions violated domestic law (i.e., the UCMJ). In a separate concurrence, Justice Breyer noted that Congress could pass legislation authorizing the President to have the detainees tried by a military commission.
In their dissents, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito made several points. Justice Scalia argued that the DTA applies retroactively, barring the Supreme Court from hearing Hamdan's case. Justice Thomas cited historical examples where conspiracy constituted a war crime. Justice Alito contended that the military commissions were implicitly authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Act and were therefore "regularly constituted tribunals" as required by the Geneva Conventions.
Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from participating in the case, having been one of the three judges who issued the decision being appealed.