Team SCLA Constitutional Law: Oral Arguments Shannon, Colleen, Logan, Alex P.

Cases Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Rasul v. Bush (2004) Boumediene v. Bush (2008) Ex Parte Quirin (1942) US v. Nixon (1974) Cheney v. US District Court for DC (2004) Nixon v. US (1993) Cases PO 352 01 Frank Cohen

Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) Facts: Ruling/holding: Legal reasoning: George Eldridge was informed by letter that his disability status was ending and that his benefits would be terminated. Eldridge challenged the termination of his benefits without such a hearing. Ruling/holding: On grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Powell, held that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to termination of disability benefits, and that the present administrative procedures for such termination fully comport with due process. Who wrote the decision: Justice Powell Margin: 6:2 Legal reasoning: The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was not violated and requires no benefits of SSA prior to a hearing. Matthews v. Eldridge (1976)

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) Facts: Ruling: Precedence: Hamdi, American citizen, arrested for accused fighting for Taliban Executive branch labeled as "enemy combatant" Filed for petition to declare detention unconstitutional Ruling: ​8:1 holding ​Due process under 5th required for detainee Enemy combatants need fair trial Precedence: ​Expands peoples rights and limits executive Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Rasul v. Bush (2004) Facts: Ruling: Precedence: ​4 British and Australians captured and moved to Guantanamo Bay Families filed suit on Habeas Corpus  Question of 5th Amendment Due Process Ruling: ​6:3 reversed district court Ruled U.S courts do have authority to decide whether citizens were wrongly imprisoned.  Detainees were free Precedence:  ​Rights are applicable to non-citizens  Rasul v. Bush (2004)

Boumediene v. Bush (2008) Facts Ruling/holding Legal reasoning In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Legal reasoning Through the Courts ruling declaring parts of the MCA to be unconstitutional based off in adequate substitutes for habeas writ the Court expanded the rights of aliens being held for war crimes granting them habeas corpus as well as expanding  jurisdiction of the courts to include Guantanamo Bay.  Ruling/holding Military Commissions Act (MCA) denied federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus actions that were pending at the time of its enactment; Suspension Clause has full effect at Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Aliens detained as enemy combatants at Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to privilege of habeas corpus to challenge legality of their detention; Provision of MCA denying federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus actions that were pending at the time of its enactment effected unconstitutional suspension of writ of habeas corpus; and 5 detainees were entitled to prompt habeas corpus hearing, and could not be required to first exhaust review procedures. Who wrote the decision: Kennedy Margin: 5 to 4 Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

The legal precedent set in Ex Parte Quirin regard’s the trial of war criminals and whether or not they right to habeas corpus (being a civil trial) vs a military commissioned trial. The ruling affirmed the President’s actions were constitutional due to the distinction of criminal action taken by the defendant. The ruling granted the Executive power to suspend habeas corpus in cases regarding Enemy Belligerents. The Supreme Court held that the president has the power to set up military courts in time of war, but that the decisions of these tribunals can be reviewed by civil courts. This case established the principle that, in times of war, unlawful combatants can be tried by military courts. Such individuals do not have the right to a civil jury trial, although the decisions of the military tribunal are subject to review by civilian courts. Ex Parte Quirin (1942)

US v. Nixon (1974) Burger stated, The Supreme Court’s ruling in US v. Nixon set legal precedent limiting the Presidents power to withhold information from a criminal trial under protected conditions. The Court ruled unanimously. President Richard Nixon had to surrender the tapes. Burger stated, “The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Article III.” “Moreover, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. It is the manifest duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.” US v. Nixon (1974)

Cheney v. US District Court for DC (2004) President established the National Energy Policy Development Group to give him advice and make recommendations on energy policy, assigning a number of federal agency heads and assistants to serve as Group members and authorizing the Vice President. As a preliminary matter, we address respondents' argument that the Government's petition for a writ of mandamus was jurisdictionally out of time or, alternatively, barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. The mandamus petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals within 60 days after the District Court denied the Government's motion to dismiss. Cheney v. US District Court for DC (2004)

Petitioner Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, was convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison. Decide whether Senate Rule XI, as applied in his impeachment trial, is constitutional. Senate Rule XI-which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an impeached individual and to report that evidence to the full Senate-the Senate voted to convict Nixon. Nixon v. US (1993)

Due Process as it pertains to Executive Power

The legal principle Executive power Due process as it pertains to executive power The war on terror Executive privilege Protection from the court’s role in impeachment Procedural due process The legal principle