The rhetoric and reality of judicial review of counter-terrorism actions: the United States experience

Judicial Review of Counter-Terror Legislation: The Jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan

“…This principle established by the USSC while it exercised judicial review of executive powers in cases before it from 2004 to 2008, was quite significant since it was for the first time in the history of the United States that the USSC held unconstitutional a wartime measure enacted by the congress. (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) While the decisions of the courts led to "optimism and hope that the judicial check on executive overreaching would be effective" (Lobel, 2014), the unwillingness of the federal courts to follow through with the decisions of the USSC have to a large extent, rendered judicial review meaningless. (Lobel, 2014) The following section analyses the USSC"s decisions in Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and lastly Boumediene v. Bush in an attempt to glean the reasoning employed by the USSC in its review of the rights of Guantanamo detainees.…”

“…(Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) While the decisions of the courts led to "optimism and hope that the judicial check on executive overreaching would be effective" (Lobel, 2014), the unwillingness of the federal courts to follow through with the decisions of the USSC have to a large extent, rendered judicial review meaningless. (Lobel, 2014) The following section analyses the USSC"s decisions in Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and lastly Boumediene v. Bush in an attempt to glean the reasoning employed by the USSC in its review of the rights of Guantanamo detainees.…”