Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, was detained at Guantanamo Bay and slated for trial by a military commission created by President Bush. The Supreme Court ruled that the commissions lacked authorization from Congress and violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions.

3) Why It Mattered
This case was a major check on executive power during the War on Terror, reaffirming that the President cannot unilaterally create courts outside constitutional and statutory limits.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Limits on executive wartime authority; recognition of Geneva Conventions protections.
• Took Away: The President’s claimed power to set up military tribunals without congressional approval.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court played its constitutional role, preserving separation of powers. Critics argued it hampered wartime flexibility, but it reinforced the rule of law.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Even during national security crises, the President must follow Congress’s rules and international law when setting up military courts.

• Separation of Powers
• War Powers
• Due Process
• Military Tribunals