## Facts

- José Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport under a federal material-witness warrant and initially held in civilian custody.
- While litigation over that detention was pending, the President designated Padilla an “enemy combatant” and directed his transfer to military custody at the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina, under Commander C. T. Hanft.
- Padilla filed habeas challenges to the legality of his military detention; after an initial jurisdictional dismissal of a New York-filed petition, he refiled in South Carolina.
- The District of South Carolina granted habeas relief, ruling the President lacked authority to hold Padilla militarily and requiring criminal charges or release.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorized Padilla’s military detention as an enemy combatant, even though he was seized on U.S. soil.
- Padilla sought Supreme Court review; while the petition was pending, the government obtained a federal criminal indictment and transferred Padilla from military to civilian custody for prosecution.
- The Supreme Court ultimately entered an order denying certiorari; Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens, issued a statement respecting the denial, and Justice Ginsburg noted she would grant certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should review the Fourth Circuit’s holding that the AUMF authorized military detention of a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant.
2. Whether Padilla’s transfer to civilian custody and pending criminal prosecution rendered the petition moot or otherwise an unsuitable vehicle for discretionary review.
3. Whether prudential considerations counseled against deciding constitutional and separation-of-powers questions tied to a detention status that had ended.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari and did not decide the merits of the asserted detention authority.
- In a statement respecting the denial, Justice Kennedy reasoned that Padilla’s release from military custody and placement into ordinary criminal process made the case a poor vehicle for resolving the difficult constitutional questions presented.
- The statement indicated that any asserted continuing harm from the government’s not retracting its claimed authority was speculative and contingent.
- Justice Ginsburg indicated she would have granted certiorari.
- The Fourth Circuit’s judgment upholding AUMF-based detention remained in effect without Supreme Court review.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of certiorari is not a merits ruling and does not constitute approval or disapproval of the lower court’s reasoning.
- The Supreme Court may deny discretionary review based on prudential case-management concerns, including a change in circumstances that reduces the concreteness of the dispute.
- Transfer from military detention to civilian custody for criminal prosecution can weigh against review of detention-authority questions when the challenged custody has ended.
- Speculative risk of future re-detention may be insufficient, at the certiorari stage, to justify deciding constitutional questions not anchored to a present custody dispute.
- Future attempts to impose similar military detention remain subject to judicial review in a concrete case.

## Conclusion

The Court declined to review the Fourth Circuit’s AUMF-based validation of Padilla’s enemy-combatant detention because his transfer to civilian custody and pending prosecution made the petition an unsuitable vehicle; the certiorari denial left the Fourth Circuit’s judgment intact without resolving the constitutional questions.


Padilla v. Hanft, 547 U.S. 1062 (2006)