logo
What is Habeas Corpus? What would happen if it were suspended

What is Habeas Corpus? What would happen if it were suspended

Time of India10-05-2025

On Friday, Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser, announced that the
is considering suspending the writ of
, the legal right to challenge one's detention.
'The constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
So that's an option we're actively looking at.
A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not,' Miller said to a group of reporters at the White House.
What is Habeas Corpus?
Habeas Corpus is a Latin word meaning which literally means 'to have the body of'. It is a legal principle requiring someone in custody to be brought before a court to determine the legality of their detention. It's essentially a "you should have the body" legal order, guaranteeing a person's right to personal liberty and a judicial review of their detention.
If habeas corpus were suspended, individuals could be detained without a court hearing, potentially leading to widespread abuses of power and a loss of fundamental legal protections.
To put it in simpler words – habeas corpus is a legal principle that ensures someone being held in custody or imprisoned is brought before a judge to determine if their detention is lawful. This legal procedure ensures that individuals detained by the state or by another person are brought before a court.
The court then determines whether there is a lawful basis for the detention. If the detention is found to be unlawful, the individual must be released.
Habeas corpus, basically, is a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, meaning if someone is imprisoned without proper legal justification, they can use habeas corpus to seek release.
What is the consequence of suspending habeas corpus?
Suspending habeas corpus means the government can detain individuals without formally charging them, effectively circumventing a fundamental right to due process.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
This can lead to prolonged detention without legal justification and abuse of power.
Key notes:
Suspension of habeas corpus :
The Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, according to the LII/Legal Information Institute. However, the power to suspend habeas corpus is not without limitations and has been the subject of debate and legal challenge.
Consequences of suspension:
If habeas corpus were suspended, individuals could be detained indefinitely without any legal review, potentially leading to arbitrary arrests and prolonged confinement without a just cause. This would undermine fundamental legal protections and open the door to potential abuse of power. Now, the consequences can be categorized as well:
Lack of due process:
Individuals detained without habeas corpus are deprived of their right to challenge the legality of their detention in court.
Potential for abuse:
It can be used to suppress dissent or silence political opponents, as seen in historical examples like the US Civil War.
Increased risk of unlawful detention:
Without the oversight of the courts, there's a greater risk of individuals being detained indefinitely or for flimsy reasons.
Legal challenges:
Any attempt to suspend habeas corpus would likely face legal challenges and be subject to judicial scrutiny. The courts would be tasked with determining whether the conditions for suspension had been met and whether the suspension was properly applied.
Historical context:
The suspension clause of habeas corpus of the
says: 'The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'
The writ of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in US history, most notably by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. It was also suspended during efforts to fight the Ku Klux Klan in the 19th century in South Carolina, in the Philippines in 1905, and in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor.
The Trump administration has already tested the limits of executive power by invoking the 1789 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members from Venezuela. But federal judges, including a Trump appointee, ruled those actions unlawful, stating the administration had not proven the US was under invasion.
It goes without saying, suspending habeas corpus would be an extremely aggressive move that would dramatically escalate the Trump administration's efforts to attack the rule of law in American courts as it tries to deport people without giving them a chance to challenge the basis of their removals.
Wake Up at 3:30 AM? Here's What Happens to Your Body – Sadhguru Explains

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

After Musk, Stephen Miller now gets into a fight with Rand Paul — the real reason behind the clash
After Musk, Stephen Miller now gets into a fight with Rand Paul — the real reason behind the clash

Time of India

time13 hours ago

  • Time of India

After Musk, Stephen Miller now gets into a fight with Rand Paul — the real reason behind the clash

Stephen Miller, a key adviser to Donald Trump, came to Capitol Hill on Thursday to talk to Republican senators. He wanted them to agree to more money for border security. Senator Rand Paul is not happy with the amount of money the White House wants, $150 billion for border stuff like fences and deportations, as per reports. Rand Paul thinks that's too much money and wants a cheaper plan. He has his own version of the bill with only $75 billion for border stuff. Out of that $75 billion, Paul wants to spend only $6.5 billion on border wall construction. This fight between Paul and Miller has been going on for a few days and is now getting worse, according to the report by CNN. On Thursday night, Paul shared his version of the bill, saying it would give 'real border security without waste.' Miller and Paul are also fighting personally now. Paul said Miller is one reason he was not invited to a White House picnic. But then Trump personally invited Paul and his family to the picnic later. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo Fight in public Miller has been posting on social media criticizing Paul. He even accused Paul of cutting border money during the Los Angeles riots. Paul told CNN, 'They want to quiet me down, and it hasn't worked, petty little things like social occasions won't make me back down.' Paul didn't show up at Miller's Thursday Senate meeting. He said he had a committee meeting at the same time, according to the report by CNN. Some Republicans are getting frustrated by the fight. Senator Markwayne Mullin said Miller explained things well, but some Republicans still didn't like what they heard. He also said Paul's way of budgeting is just to 'cut everything in half and call it good.' Senator Rick Scott said Republicans just wanted more details on how exactly the money would be used, not that they were against Miller, as per reports. Live Events Senator Ron Johnson, another budget hawk, questioned the math in Miller's plan. He said the costs didn't add up and they didn't have the calculations. Johnson said Miller did a good job explaining why it's expensive, but senators still didn't know how exactly the money would be spent. Meanwhile, Senate GOP leaders are trying to overrule Rand Paul and change the bill to give Trump what he wants. Paul also called out Senator Lindsey Graham, saying he only acts like a money saver when it suits him, but is actually just a rubber stamp for Trump, as per the report by CNN. FAQ Q1. Why are Stephen Miller and Rand Paul fighting? They disagree on how much money to spend on border security. Q2. What does Rand Paul want in the border bill? He wants to spend less money, about half of what the White House wants.

10 Baby Names That Are Illegal In Australia: Here's What They Mean
10 Baby Names That Are Illegal In Australia: Here's What They Mean

India.com

time2 days ago

  • India.com

10 Baby Names That Are Illegal In Australia: Here's What They Mean

Muskan Kalra Jun 13, 2025 It means 'Smelly head' in Cantonese and Reason behind getting banned: Considered offensive and could subject the child to bullying or ridicule. It means a political or religious leader and Reason behind getting it banned: A government/religious title, making it unsuitable for registration. Chief means a leader or ruler of a group or tribe. Reason behind banned: Rejected due to being an authoritative title. Traditionally 'light-bringer' in Latin, but commonly associated with the devil in Christian belief and reason of getting banned: Religious and cultural sensitivity; may be seen as offensive or inappropriate. A savior or liberator, especially in religious contexts (Judaism/Christianity) and reason of getting banned: Considered a religious title; may be misleading or offensive. A fictional superhero created by DC Comics and reason of getting banned: Rejected for being a pop culture reference, which may lead to ridicule. Duke is a nobleman of high rank and reason behind getting it banned: Falls under prohibited titles. Saint is a person recognized as holy or virtuous, especially by the Church and reason behind it getting banned: Considered an honorific or title not allowed as a given name. It means a male royal family member, typically the son of a king or queen and reason behind getting it banned: It's an official title, and such titles are not allowed in given names. It means a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan; also a pop culture figure and reason behind getting banned: May be considered frivolous or inappropriate, and possibly subject to ridicule. Read Next Story

Hyphen-hype
Hyphen-hype

Time of India

time4 days ago

  • Time of India

Hyphen-hype

A former associate editor with the Times of India, Jug Suraiya writes two regular columns for the print edition, Jugular Vein, which appears every Friday, and Second Opinion, which appears on Wednesdays. His blog takes a contrarian view of topical and timeless issues, political, social, economic and speculative. LESS ... MORE The weaponisation of a commonly used mark of punctuation, and how best to counter it The minister of Punctuation, Propaganda, and Fake News was addressing his aides and assorted flunkies. There is good news and there is bad news, said the minister. First, the good news. The good news is that our Operation Hyphen worked even better than we anticipated. The terror attack we masterminded triggered an inevitable response from The Adversary who promptly launched multiple strikes against the terrorist training camps we've established. So far so good, said the minister, while his aides and assorted flunkies nodded in obsequious agreement. With the escalation of hostilities which we so cunningly had provoked, international attention, not to mention alarm, got focused on the face-off between us and the adversary, as we had planned, said the minister. This was the good news, he continued. Our Operation Hyphen was crowned with success because in the eyes of the international community we and the adversary got re-hyphenated. Or, to be more precise, clarified the minister, we and the adversary got re-re-hyphenated, after having been repeatedly de-de-hyphenated. The hyphen, explained the minister, which is not to be confused with the N dash or the M dash, or the minus sign which it resembles, is one heck of a juju of a punctuation mark. Its name derives from the Greek 'Huphen', which in late Latin became 'hyphen' and means 'together'. The first recorded use of the hyphen to join two words, and by implication, give them equal value or status was by Dionysus Thrax, the great Greek grammarian (170-90BC), pronounced the minister. Thanks to the hyphen we got equated with The Adversary, even though we are a bankrupt military dictatorship and The Adversary is the world's most populous democracy and the fifth-largest economy to boot, he gloated. That's good news, he said. Unfortunately, he continued, the bad news is that The Adversary has made it abundantly clear to all concerned that to counter our hyphen, if necessary it is ready to come up with an even bigger juju of a punctuation mark: the Full Stop… Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store