Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hamdi Vs. Rumsfeld

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

74 entries 12 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Addington Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1979
  2. Zinermon Vs. Burch US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1990
  3. Schall Vs. Martin US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1984
  4. Fuentes Vs. Shevin US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1972
  5. Armstrong Vs. Manzo US Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1965
  6. Sterling Vs. Constantin US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1932
  7. Tumey Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  8. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  9. Heller Vs. Doe US Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1993
  10. Carey Vs. Piphus US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1978
  11. United States Vs. Robel US Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1967
  12. BaldwIn Vs. Hale US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1863
  13. Syllabus October Term, 2003 Hamdi V. Rumsfeld
    Search
  14. Supreme Court of the United States Hamdi Et Al. V. Rumsfeld
    Search
  15. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
    Search
  16. Opinion of O'Connor, J. Hamdi V. Rumsfeld
    Search
  17. States No. 03-6696 Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi, as Next Friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi, Petition- Ers V. Donald
    Search
  18. Both Smith v. Shaw
    Search
  19. Connell v. Hampton
    Search
  20. citing Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill
    Search
  21. s asserted justifications for that detention have basis in fact and warrant in law. See, e.g ., Zadvydas v. Davis
    Search
  22. U. S. Const., Amdt. 5, is the test that we articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  23. U. S. 319 (1976). See, e.g. , Heller v. Doe
    Search
  24. s own government. Foucha v. Louisiana
    Search
  25. Jones v. United
    Search
  26. this stage in the Mathews calculus, we consider the interest of the erroneously detained individual. Carey v. Piphus
    Search
  27. Connor v. Donaldson
    Search
  28. U. S. 563 , 575 (1975), our starting point for the Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  29. in the hands of those who are best positioned and most politically accountable for making them. Department of Navy v. Egan
    Search
  30. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Search
  31. in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. See Kennedy v. Mendoza&nbhyph
    Search
  32. see also United States v. Robel
    Search
  33. s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. See Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill
    Search
  34. quoting Mullane v. Central
    Search
  35. Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction
    Search
  36. quoting Ward v. Monroeville
    Search
  37. U. S. 67 , 80 (1972) (quoting Baldwin v. Hale
    Search
  38. honored and constitutionally mandated roles of reviewing and resolving claims like those presented here. Cf. Korematsu v. United
    Search
  39. conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. Mistretta v. United
    Search
  40. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell
    Search
  41. time whether any treaty guarantees him similar access to a tribunal for a determination of his status. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
    Search
  42. Scalia, J., Dissenting Hamdi V. Rumsfeld
    Search
  43. prosecute, or by asserting that it was incapacitating dangerous offenders rather than punishing wrongdoing. Cf. Kansas v. Hendricks
    Search
  44. during World War I in a spying conspiracy on behalf of Germany were tried in federal court. See United States v. Fricke
    Search
  45. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  46. A German member of the same conspiracy was subjected to military process. See United States ex rel. Wessels v. McDonald
    Search
  47. them (with the exception of one citizen-saboteur, discussed below) were punished under the criminal process. See Haupt v. United
    Search
  48. see also Cramer v. United
    Search
  49. against the United States was subjected to criminal process and convicted upon a guilty plea. See United States v. Lindh
    Search
  50. Stat. 691. In 1905 the writ was suspended for nine months by proclamation of the Governor. See Fisher v. Baker
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial