## Facts

- José Padilla, a U.S. citizen, arrived at Chicago O’Hare Airport from Pakistan on May 8, 2002 and was arrested on a material witness warrant issued by the Southern District of New York in a grand jury investigation related to the September 11 attacks.
- While Padilla sought to vacate the material witness warrant, the President designated him an “enemy combatant” on June 9, 2002 and directed the Secretary of Defense to detain him in military custody, citing Commander-in-Chief authority and the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
- Padilla was transferred from civilian custody in New York to a Navy brig in Charleston, South Carolina and held in military detention without criminal charges for a substantial period.
- Padilla filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of New York, naming the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the brig commander as respondents and alleging his military detention was unlawful.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary of Defense could be named as respondent to a habeas petition challenging Padilla’s present physical confinement, and whether the Southern District of New York had jurisdiction.
2. Whether the President had inherent Article II authority to detain a U.S. citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant without clear statutory authorization.
3. Whether the AUMF supplied the clear congressional authorization required by the Non-Detention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), to detain a U.S. citizen.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held the Secretary of Defense was a proper respondent and that the Southern District of New York could exercise jurisdiction over him.
- The Second Circuit reversed on the merits, holding the President lacked inherent constitutional authority to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant under these circumstances absent clear congressional authorization.
- The Second Circuit held the AUMF did not clearly authorize Padilla’s military detention as required by the Non-Detention Act.
- On Supreme Court review, the Court decided only jurisdiction: it held the petition was filed in the wrong district and against the wrong respondent, directing dismissal without prejudice so Padilla could refile in the district of confinement against his immediate custodian.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Non-Detention Act, a U.S. citizen may not be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress; the Second Circuit treated this as requiring clear statutory authorization for citizen detention.
- The Second Circuit read general statutory authorizations to use military force (such as the AUMF) as insufficient, without more specific language, to authorize indefinite military detention of a U.S. citizen arrested domestically outside a combat zone.
- For “core” habeas challenges to present physical confinement, the proper respondent is generally the petitioner’s immediate physical custodian, and the petition must be filed in the district of confinement.
- A federal court’s habeas jurisdiction in such cases is determined by § 2241 and related precedent, not by state long-arm statutes used to reach higher-level officials.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit concluded that detaining a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant required clear congressional authorization not supplied by the AUMF, but the Supreme Court did not reach that merits question, instead requiring dismissal because Padilla sued the wrong respondent in the wrong district under the immediate-custodian and district-of-confinement rules.


Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 352 F.3d 695 (2d Cir. 2003)