Foreign individuals labeled as "adversaries" by heads of state, from George W. Bush to Donald Trump
The War on Terror's Legal Battlefield
After the devastating September 11, 2001 attacks, a new legal landscape emerged under President George W. Bush. He labeled it the "War on Terror," a moniker that aimed to bypass conventional law. In the subsequent weeks, over 5,000 Muslim residents were arrested, predominantly in New York, and nearly 80,000 more were summoned by police for registration—all under the banner of the new "war on terror."
As history unfolded, the Supreme Court stepped in to challenge this new reality. In a series of groundbreaking decisions, the court delivered a blow to the notion that terrorism can overturn American constitutional law. On June 28, 2004, under the leadership of John Roberts—now the Chief Justice—the court reaffirmed that prisoners caught in the "war" on terror had the right to question the legality of their detention in American courts, under the principle of habeas corpus. Even foreign "enemy combatants" incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuban soil chosen for its legal uncertainty by the Republican president, were granted this right.
According to various court rulings, foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions. This was affirmed in the 2004 case, Rasul v. Bush, which disputed the Bush administration's claim that the facility's offshore status removed detainees from judicial review [1][4].
Similarly, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the court confirmed that U.S. citizens labeled as "enemy combatants" still retain habeas corpus rights. The justices underlined that due process necessitates a proper examination of the legitimacy of detention, even during times of conflict [1][3].
Post-2006, the Military Commissions Act (2006) aimed to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees. However, subsequent decisions, such as Boumediene v. Bush (though not explicitly mentioned here), reaffirmed that habeas corpus applies to noncitizens at Guantanamo, invalidating such congressional limitations as unconstitutional [1].
In more recent Trump-era deportation cases, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees slated for removal under the Alien Enemies Act (a 1798 wartime law) retain the right to notice and habeas petitions before deportation. This decision, though allowing for expedited deportations and judicial review in the detainees' districts of confinement, underscored habeas corpus as a safeguard [2][5].
In summary, these landmark court decisions collectively assert that habeas corpus protections extend to both citizens and noncitizens in American custody, even in counterterrorism contexts [1][2][4].
- The 2004 case, Rasul v. Bush, determined that foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions.
- In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the court confirmed that U.S. citizens labeled as "enemy combatants" still retain habeas corpus rights.
- Despite the Military Commissions Act (2006) aiming to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees, subsequent decisions reaffirmed that habeas corpus applies to noncitizens at Guantanamo, invalidating such congressional limitations as unconstitutional.
- In more recent Trump-era deportation cases, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees slated for removal under the Alien Enemies Act retain the right to notice and habeas petitions before deportation.
- Collectively, these landmark court decisions assert that habeas corpus protections extend to both citizens and noncitizens in American custody, even in counterterrorism contexts.
