What did the justices rule in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)?
A) The actions of a president are not subject to judicial review.
B) The president does not have the authority to declare individuals to be "enemy combatants."
C) Hamdi was entitled to a lawyer and an opportunity to rebut the government's charges against him.
D) During the war, the president's power as commander-in-chief is unlimited.
E) The president has the power to suspend writs of habeas corpus under any circumstances.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The justices ruled that Hamdi was entitled to a lawyer and an opportunity to rebut the government's charges against him. The court held that the detention of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant" must be accompanied by due process protections. However, the ruling also confirmed that the president has the authority to hold citizens as enemy combatants under certain circumstances.

What Did the Justices Rule in Hamdi V