Legal
Briefs in Padilla v. Rumsfeld:
Challenging President's Ability to Detain U.S. Citizen Without Charge
Human Rights First has coordinated three
friend-of-the-court (amicus) briefs in Padilla v. Rumsfeld. Oral
arguments in the case took place on Monday, November 17, 2003 before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan.
Arguments began at 10 a.m. before a panel of three judges.
Jenny Martinez, a Stanford Law professor who wrote one of the amicus briefs
coordinated by Human Rights First, participated in oral arguments.
She argued that the Executive lacks the constitutional and statutory authority
to detain Mr. Padilla as an “enemy combatant,” without charge,
trial, or access to an attorney.
The three amicus briefs coordinated by Human Rights First are:
Padilla v. Rumsfeld is an unprecedented case concerning Jose Padilla,
a Brooklyn-born U.S. citizen accused of plotting to set off a “dirty
bomb” in the United States. The case raises profound questions about
the Executive’s authority to seize U.S. citizens and unilaterally
remove them from the constitutional protections the U.S. Founders provided.
On May 8, 2002, Mr. Padilla was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare
Airport on the basis of information obtained from the interrogation of
a senior Al Qaeda official. He was originally arrested under a material
witness warrant issued by a federal district court in New York, but the
district court made clear that he would eventually have to be charged
or released.
Even while proceedings were pending, the Executive abruptly classified
Mr. Padilla as an “enemy combatant” and ordered military personnel
to enter the prison where he was being held. They seized him and transported
him to a military brig in South Carolina – without informing his
lawyer. Mr. Padilla has remained in the military brig ever since, barred
from asserting his innocence or from communicating with his family or
lawyer in any way. Except for his captors, no one has any idea what is
happening to Mr. Padilla within that brig.
