Citation network
Rumsfeld Vs. Padilla
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Rumsfeld V. PadillaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense V. PadillaSearch
-
Wales v. WhitneySearch
-
clause to prevent judges anywhere from issuing the Great Writ on behalf of applicants far distantly removed, Carbo v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rumsfeld v. PadillaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Rumsfeld V. PadillaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-1027 Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Petitioner V. JoseSearch
-
U. S. 1 (1942). The District Court issued its decision in December 2002. Padilla ex rel. Newman v. BushSearch
-
prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official. See, e.g. , Hogan v. HanksSearch
-
F. 3d 189, 190 (CA7 1996), Brittingham v. UnitedSearch
-
Blango v. ThornburghSearch
-
Brennan v. CunninghamSearch
-
Guerra v. MeeseSearch
-
Billiteri v. UnitedSearch
-
Sanders v. BennettSearch
-
Jones v. BiddleSearch
-
is the proper respondent, not Secretary Rumsfeld. See Al-Marri v. RumsfeldSearch
-
Monk v. SecretarySearch
-
was disapproved in Hensley v. MunicipalSearch
-
U. S., at 495 (internal quotation marks omitted). For the same reason, Strait v. LairdSearch
-
Carbo v. UnitedSearch
-
federal prisoners could litigate such collateral attacks only in the district of confinement. See United States v. HaymanSearch
-
presence of both the petitioner and his custodian within the territorial confines of the district court. See Ahrens v. ClarkSearch
-
Guerra , 786 F. 2d, at 417. Indeed, in stating its holding, Braden favorably cites Schlanger v. SeamansSearch
-
would be subject to habeas jurisdiction only in the district where he physically resides. Ibid. (quoting Arlen v. LairdSearch
-
and asked the court to vacate the material witness warrant. Padilla ex rel Newman v. RumsfeldSearch
-
a), and not in the sense of subject-matter jurisdiction of the District Court. Footnote 8 In Ahrens v. ClarkSearch
-
immediate custodian rule and holding that the Attorney General is not a proper respondent. Compare Robledo-Gonzales v. AshcroftSearch
-
Roman v. AshcroftSearch
-
Vasquez v. RenoSearch
-
F. 3d 500 (CA3 1994) (same), with Armentero v. INSSearch
-
respondent). The Second Circuit discussed the question at some length, but ultimately reserved judgment in Henderson v. INSSearch
-
under the habeas statute, see Garlotte v. FordiceSearch
-
in criminal habeas cases. Al-Marri v. RumsfeldSearch
-
to name as respondent a supervisory official and file the petition in the district where the respondent resides. Burns v. WilsonSearch
-
n. 4 (citing Garlotte v. FordiceSearch
-
citing Eisel v. SecretarySearch
-
an inactive reservist challenging his military status to name the Secretary of the Army as respondent)). Demjanjuk v. MeeseSearch
-
s officer in charge of penal institutions. Post , at 7, n. 4 (citing California Dept. of Corrections v. MoralesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial