An Amicus brief in support of the challenges to the lawfulness of the detention of suspects at Guatanamo Naval Base. In a landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court held that the setting up of military tribunals and the attempts to oust the jurisdiction and supervision of the civil courts thereby denying detainees fundamental rights, including the right of Habeas Corpus was in breach of US federal law and international human rights law.

The plaintiff in this case was Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a citizen of Yemen and a driver formerly employed to work on an agricultural project that Osama bin Laden created to support the people of Afghanistan. Hamdan was captured by militia forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and turned over to the United States. Following his seizure, he was sent to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. In July 2004, he was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him before a military commission authorized under Military Commission Order No. 1 of March 21, 2002.

Hamdan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the military commission convened to try him was illegal and lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Following the Supreme Court ruling on another case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan was granted a review before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which determined that he was eligible for detention by the United States as an "enemy combatant" or "person of interest". After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war.