A writ of habeas corpus is a legal mechanism in federal courts that allows individuals to contest unlawful detention. Recently, President Trump expressed uncertainty about whether he must uphold the Constitution while executing his deportation strategy. His senior adviser, Stephen Miller, suggested the administration might consider suspending this constitutional right, claiming it can be suspended during times of invasion.
Miller’s comments come amid significant cases highlighting the role of habeas corpus relating to individuals without lawful immigration status, including students targeted for their political views. A federal judge ordered the release of Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk from detention under habeas corpus, and another judge released Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi, emphasizing the writ’s contemporary relevance.
Miller’s assertion that immigration cases fall outside judicial jurisdiction faced criticism from legal experts like Stephen Vladeck, who countered that Congress, not the executive, has the power to suspend habeas corpus, aligning with constitutional principles. The historical roots of habeas corpus date back to the Magna Carta, with the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing these protections under Article I, which specifies suspension only in cases of rebellion or invasion.
Legal scholars, including current Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and former Solicitor General Neal Katyal, note that habeas corpus can only be temporarily suspended under extraordinary circumstances and must be enacted by Congress. Historical examples of suspension include actions taken during the Civil War and World War II, highlighting the gravity and limitations of such measures. Overall, the discussion raises significant concerns regarding executive overreach and the balance of powers in relation to immigration and constitutional rights.
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image of the presented article.
