Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Rumsfeld v. Padilla

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawHabeas CorpusFederal JurisdictionEnemy Combatant Detentionhabeas corpus28 U.S.C. § 2241immediate custodiandistrict of confinement

Facts

Padilla, a United States citizen, was initially arrested in Chicago on a material witness warrant issued by the Southern District of New York and then held in federal criminal custody in New York. On June 9, 2002, the President designated Padilla an enemy combatant and directed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to detain him in military custody; that same day Padilla was transferred to the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina, where he remained. Two days later, Padilla's counsel filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of New York naming President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Commander Marr, the brig commander, as respondents. The Government moved to dismiss, arguing that Marr was the only proper respondent and that the New York federal court lacked jurisdiction over her because she was located outside that district.

Issue

For a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging present physical custody within the United States, who is the proper respondent and where must the petition be filed? Specifically, could Padilla file in the Southern District of New York against Secretary Rumsfeld rather than in South Carolina against Commander Marr?

Rule

In core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement within the United States, the proper respondent is the petitioner's immediate physical custodian, ordinarily the warden or equivalent official of the facility of detention, not a remote supervisory official. Such a petition must be filed in the district of confinement, because jurisdiction lies only where the court has jurisdiction over that immediate custodian.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Evan Torres is confined at a federal detention center in Phoenix, Arizona. He files a § 2241 petition in the District of Arizona challenging the legality of his present confinement, but he names the Attorney General and the director of a fictional federal detention bureau rather than the Phoenix facility's warden.

Who is the proper respondent under the governing rule?

Explanation. In a core § 2241 habeas petition challenging present physical confinement within the United States, the proper respondent is the immediate physical custodian—the warden or equivalent officer who has day-to-day control and can produce the detainee's body. Remote supervisory officials are not proper respondents merely because they exercise higher-level authority or approved the detention.