Why the Court Said No: The Supreme Court’s Continued Opposition to Bush Administration Guantanamo Bay Policy

Abstract

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, actions taken by the presidential administration of George W. Bush fundamentally undermined the rule of law. This thesis examines a selection of these illegal actions within the context of the detention facility at the United States Military Base of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It was through the treatment of alleged terrorists held at the base that the Bush administration flaunted both the spirit and text of the law. By acting unilaterally, without the support of Congress, the President increased the authority of the presidency while attempting to undercut the traditional checks on power that have defined the United States federal government. Eventually, it was only the United States Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush (2004), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that was willing to defy its traditional deference towards a wartime president and restore the rule of law.