For Reference: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Prof. Swift posed the question in the syllabus: What kind of hearing will Hamdi get? The government allowed the enemy combatants to bring their cases before military tribunals. Whether a military tribunal is an appropriate court for the enemy combatant's complaint is address in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14315 (read the case on LEXIS*). You may want to pay close attention to who the judges in the case were . . . Also, if you find the original Hamdi v. Rumsfeld on-line (124 S. Ct. 2633), you can Shepardize it, that is, you can find out which cases have cited to any part of the opinion. This quickly allows you to follow the development of a body of law (in this case, the legal treatment of the enemy combatants).

For additional cases involving enemey combatants, see also In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 4651 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2005) (consolidating detainee cases) [note the judges hearing the case - literally the three most influential D.C. Circuit judges] and Padilla v. Hanft (4th Cir.). Both cases are still pending on their merits. Decisions will likely be released soon and will surely be appealed to the Supreme Court. More information on the prospects of these cases going before the Supreme Court can be found in Jonathon Adler, Looking Ahead to the 2005-2006 Term, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=782304 (SSRN is a large database of working papers by faculty nationwide. Most require a subscription, available at school, to download, but this paper is free).

--

* If you use Lexis, you can begin accumulating Lexis points [Ed. I bought twenty iTunes and three books to read for fun thanks to the points I got from using Lexis last year - I'm already halfway to another new hardcover novel]. It's a nice little perk to being in law school.