In the case of Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense v. Jose Padilla and Donna R. Newman, as Next Friend of Jose Padilla (2003), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a U.S citizen detained on American soil as an enemy combatant could not challenge his detention in court because he had filed his habeas corpus petition in the wrong jurisdiction. The court stated that such petitions must be filed either where the detainee is being held or where they were sentenced; neither was true for Mr. Padilla's case since he was being held at a military brig in South Carolina but had filed his petition in New York City federal courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was a departure from historical precedent and an overreach of executive power. He contended that Jose Padilla, as a U.S citizen detained on American soil, had clear constitutional rights to due process which were violated by his indefinite military detention without charge or trial. Furthermore, he criticized the government’s reliance on wartime powers in this case as inappropriate given that Congress had not formally declared war nor specifically authorized such detentions domestically against citizens suspected of terrorism. He also expressed concern about potential abuses stemming from unchecked executive authority in matters of national security and emphasized the importance of judicial review even during times of crisis.