Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court ruled that detention of enemy combatants in times of war is ok, but that a citizen held as an enemy combatant must be given the opportunity to contest his detention before a neutral fact-finder. The Court held that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed after September 11, is an act of Congress which allows for detention of enemy combatants. And, the court held that enemy combatants can be detained for as long as active hostilities last. However, the Court also held that citizen detainees must be given the chance to contest the government's determination of fact. The Court said this can be done before a military tribunal, and that the court can institute procedural safeguards, such as shifting the burden of proof to the defendent, during these hearings. Justice Souter agreed that enemy combatants can be detained where there is a clear congressional enactment providing for their detention, but disagreed as to whether the AUMF was such an enactment, concluding it wasn't. Justice Scalia dissented, holding that without congressional suspension of habeas corpus, a citizen cannot be detained without charges being filed against him. Justices Thomas and Rehnquist also dissented, holding that detention was within the powers of the executive branch, and that courts should not intervene in determining whether someone is actually an enemy combatant.