## Facts

- After the September 11 attacks, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) permitting the President to use necessary and appropriate force against those responsible.
- Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001 by U.S.-allied forces during active combat operations.
- The government alleged Hamdi was affiliated with a Taliban military unit and surrendered an assault rifle upon capture.
- Hamdi was transferred to and detained in U.S. military brigs in Virginia and South Carolina as an “enemy combatant.”
- Hamdi’s father filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as “next friend,” alleging the Constitution (including due process) barred indefinite military detention on the asserted basis.
- The government submitted a Defense Department official’s sworn declaration summarizing the factual basis for Hamdi’s enemy-combatant designation.
- The district court found the declaration insufficient by itself and ordered production of additional materials (including for in camera review), reflecting skepticism of continued detention absent more robust process.
- The government appealed, arguing the district court’s orders improperly intruded on Executive war powers.

## Issues

1. Whether the AUMF and the President’s war powers authorize detention of a U.S. citizen captured in an overseas combat zone as an enemy combatant.
2. Whether a federal court may require the Executive to provide evidentiary support beyond a sworn declaration to justify such detention.
3. What role habeas review and due process play when a citizen is detained by the military based on an enemy-combatant designation arising from battlefield capture abroad.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court.
- The court held the AUMF authorized detention of individuals the Executive determined to be enemy combatants as an incident of waging war.
- The court concluded the government’s sworn declaration provided a sufficient basis for continued military detention in these circumstances.
- The court ruled the district court erred by demanding additional evidentiary production and broader judicial inquiry into the designation.
- The court directed dismissal of the habeas petition and vacatur of the district court’s production orders.

## Legal Principles

- The AUMF’s authorization of “necessary and appropriate force” includes the power to detain enemy combatants to prevent their return to hostilities.
- When a detainee is captured in an active foreign combat zone and the Executive provides credible evidence of enemy-combatant status, courts must accord substantial deference to the political branches in matters tied to overseas military operations.
- Habeas review remains available but, in this setting, is limited to confirming a lawful basis for detention and that the government has proffered some credible support; it does not require full civil-style discovery or a traditional evidentiary hearing.
- Judicial demands for extensive process, counsel access, and wide-ranging disclosure may be curtailed where they risk entangling courts in war conduct and exposing sensitive military information.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that the AUMF and wartime Executive authority permitted Hamdi’s military detention as an enemy combatant and that a sworn government declaration sufficed to support detention, requiring substantial judicial restraint and rejecting the district court’s broader evidentiary and procedural demands.


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003)