A writ of habeas corpus, essential in U.S. law, allows individuals to contest their detention in federal courts. Recently, President Trump expressed uncertainty about his obligation to uphold the Constitution regarding his immigration policies. Senior adviser Stephen Miller suggested that the administration is considering suspending this constitutional right, citing that it could happen during times of invasion. The concept of habeas corpus, rooted in historical legal precedents, enables individuals to challenge the legality of their imprisonment.
Miller’s comments come amid notable cases involving unlawful detentions under the Trump administration, particularly impacting individuals without legal status or international students advocating for pro-Palestinian causes. For instance, federal judges recently ordered the release of detained students under writs of habeas corpus, emphasizing the ongoing legal battles regarding immigration practices.
Critics, including legal scholars like Stephen Vladeck, have condemned Miller’s remarks as “dangerous” and misleading, arguing that legislative actions do not grant the President authority to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. The Constitution specifies that only Congress can suspend this right, typically during extraordinary circumstances like rebellion or invasion, to protect public safety.
While habeas corpus has been suspended historically — such as during Lincoln’s presidency in the Civil War or in response to the Pearl Harbor attack — it has traditionally required congressional approval. Experts emphasize that asserting unilateral presidential power to suspend habeas corpus contradicts foundational principles established by the framers of the Constitution. The enduring legal framework reinforces that the courts maintain a critical role in safeguarding individual liberties against wrongful detention.
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image of the presented article.
