Case Study: Rumsfeld V. Padilla

6. Rumsfeld v. Padilla 542 US 426 (2004) Donald H. Rumsfeld was the petitioner, while Jose Padilla was the respondent. Jose Padilla returned from Pakistan in 2002; he arrived in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. It was there that Padilla was detained by the Department of Defense until determined if he was an “enemy combatant” in terms with al Qaeda. It was said by the FBI that Padilla’s presence in the US was to create terroristic attacks. Padilla was moved to a military brig located in South Carolina where he was kept for the time being. His representation, Donna Newman, filed for a petition of habeas corpus for Padilla. His next friend suggested that Padilla’s detention violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as

The writ of habeas corpus should have been filed towards the person directly accountable for Padilla’s containment. Therefore, Padilla should have filed against the commander of the military brig he was held at, which was located in South Carolina. However, it was also stated that the President did not have the power to declare American citizens, not located in a combat zone, an “enemy combatant.”
7. Vieth v. Jubelirer 541 US 267 (2004) The Pennsylvania General Assembly redrew the district map of the state in order to create electoral constituencies for the congressional elections after the 2000 census. The census decreased the size of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation by two. The map was then challenged by Richard Vieth, the appellee. The appellant, Robert C. Jubelirer was the President of the Pennsylvania Senate. The Democratic candidates claimed this map change benefited the Republicans. The Democrats claims the redistricting plan was unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was decided on April 28, 2004, that the Court decided not to intervene because there wasn’t a proper solution the courts could make. Justice Scalia that a solution did not exist. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that he believed the Court should not give up to finding

This case starts with the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which was the response to decades of voting discrimination, in specific, racial discrimination. However, in this Act, it required parts of the country to deliver tests as a perquisite to voting, this was known as Section 4 of the act. These locations had lower voter turnouts. Districts are prohibited from changing their election laws without gaining authorization in court, this is stated in Section 5 of the act. Shelby County wanted to argue if the renewal of all sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 are out of Congress’s jurisdiction, specifically Section 5 which does not allow for the district to revise Section 4. It was to be decided if Congress went against the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution. On June 25, 2013, it was ruled, in 5-4 decision that Section 4 of the act is unconstitutional and does not match up with the current conditions of the country. This also meant that the court ruled Section 5 is no longer needed and the Congress cannot justify keeping it any longer. The Constitution allows for the states to regulate