logo
Homeland Security secretary says habeas corpus lets Trump ‘remove people from this country'

Homeland Security secretary says habeas corpus lets Trump ‘remove people from this country'

Boston Globe20-05-2025

Advertisement
The back and forth follows comments by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who said earlier this month that President Donald Trump is looking for ways to expand his administration's legal power to deport migrants who are in the United States illegally. To achieve that, Miller said the administration is 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
What is habeas corpus?
The Latin term means, literally, 'you have the body.' Federal courts use a writ of habeas corpus to bring a prisoner before a neutral judge to determine if imprisonment is legal.
Habeas corpus was included in the Constitution as an import from English common law. Parliament enacted the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which was meant to ensure that the king released prisoners when the law did not justify confining them.
Advertisement
The Constitution's Suspension Clause, the second clause of Section 9 of Article I, states that habeas corpus 'shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'
Has it been suspended previously?
Yes. The United States has suspended habeas corpus under four distinct circumstances during its history. Those usually involved authorization from Congress, something that would be nearly impossible today — even at Trump's urging — given the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus multiple times during the Civil War, beginning in 1861 to detain suspected spies and Confederate sympathizers. He ignored a ruling from Roger Taney, the Supreme Court 's chief justice. Congress then authorized suspending it in 1863, which allowed Lincoln to do so again.
Congress acted similarly under President Ulysses S. Grant, suspending habeas corpus in parts of South Carolina under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, it was meant to counter violence and intimidation by groups that opposed Reconstruction in the South.
Habeas corpus was suspended in two provinces of the Philippines in 1905, when it was a U.S. territory and authorities were worried about the threat of an insurrection, and in Hawaii after the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor but before it became a state in 1959.
Writing before becoming a Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett co-authored a piece stating that the Suspension Clause 'does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it.'
What has the Trump administration said about suspending it?
Miller has said the administration is considering trying.
Advertisement
'The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,' he told reporters outside the White House on May 9.
'So, I would say that's an option we're actively looking at,' Miller said. 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.'
Asked by Hassan on Tuesday if she supported the provision, Noem said she did, adding that 'the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.'
Hassan, who responded by saying that even Lincoln had obtained 'retroactive approval' from Congress, then asked Noem if she would follow a court order overturning a theoretical suspension of habeas corpus, or if she would follow Trump's decision.
Noem said she was 'following all court orders ... as is the president,' prompting Hassan to say 'that is obviously not true for anybody who reads the news.'
John Blume, a professor at Cornell Law School, said Noem's response to Hassan was either evidence that she 'fundamentally misunderstands habeas corpus' or 'was giving an answer she knew was wrong to appease the president.'
Should the administration argue that the constitutional provision should be suspended due to what Trump officials have characterized as an 'invasion' by migrants, Blume said he felt such a position would be 'very unlikely to fly' with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Could the Trump administration do it?
It can try. Miller suggested that the U.S. is facing an 'invasion' of migrants. That term was used deliberately, though any effort to suspend habeas corpus would spark legal challenges questioning whether the country was in fact facing an invasion, let alone one that presented extraordinary threats to public safety.
Advertisement
Federal judges have so far been skeptical of the Trump administration's past efforts to use extraordinary powers to make deportations easier, and that could make suspending habeas corpus even tougher.
Trump argued in March that the United States was facing an 'invasion' of Venezuelan gang members and evoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime authority he has tried to use to speed up mass deportations. His administration acted to swiftly deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua to a notorious prison in El Salvador, leading to a series of legal fights.
Federal courts around the country, including in New York, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania, have since blocked the administration's uses of the Alien Enemies Act for many reasons, including by raising questions about whether the country is truly facing an invasion.
If courts are already skeptical, how could habeas corpus be suspended?
Miller, who has been fiercely critical of judges ruling against the administration, advanced the argument that the judicial branch may not get to decide.
'Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts, that's the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases,' he said earlier this month.
That statute was approved by Congress in 1952 and there were important amendments in 1996 and 2005. Legal scholars note that it does contain language that could funnel certain cases to immigration courts, which are overseen by the executive branch.
Still, most appeals in those cases would largely be handled by the judicial branch, and they could run into the same issues as Trump's attempts to use the Alien Enemies Act.
The U.S. system of government is divided into three branches: executive (the president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (the courts).
Advertisement
Have other administrations tried this?
Technically not since Pearl Harbor, though habeas corpus has been at the center of some major legal challenges more recently than that.
Republican President George W. Bush did not move to suspend habeas corpus after the Sept. 11 attacks, but his administration subsequently sent detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, drawing lawsuits from advocates who argued the administration was violating it and other legal constitutional protections.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, allowing them to challenge their detention before a judge. That led to some detainees being released.
Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

time10 minutes ago

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

NEW YORK -- The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.'

Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run for Georgia
Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run for Georgia

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run for Georgia

Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley is considering a new profession. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the former Vols coach is weighing his options on joining the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Georgia. Dooley, who would be joining the Republican Party, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he hasn't entered his name yet into the race against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff, and will have a decision on whether he'll enter the Republican primary in the "coming weeks." REQUIRED READING: Why Tennessee football fans are dissatisfied despite Josh Heupel's wild success "Georgia deserves strong, common-sense leadership in the U.S. Senate that represents all Georgians and focuses on results — not headlines," Dooley told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I believe our state needs a political outsider in Washington — not another career politician — to cut through the noise and partisanship and get back to real problem-solving." As noted by Saturday Down South, Dooley received a law degree from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1994. Dooley, 56, is also the son of legendary Georgia coach Vince Dooley, who still holds the record as the Bulldogs' winningest coach with 201 victories. In his three seasons at Tennessee, Dooley led the Vols to a 15-21 overall record. His best season came during his first season on Rocky Top, as Tennessee went 6-7 overall and earned a berth to the Music City Bowl. Tennessee would lose its lone bowl game under Dooley, 30-27 to North Carolina in 2010. Following his tenure at Tennessee, Dooley spent four seasons in the NFL as the Dallas Cowboys' wide receiver coach before returning to the college ranks to be the offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at Missouri from 2018-19. His most recent coaching job came as a senior offensive analyst at Alabama for Nick Saban across the 2022 and 2023 seasons. This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Former Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley 'weighing' U.S. Senate run

Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House
Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House

Yahoo

time14 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House

A federal appeals court panel on Friday reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from several key areas where presidential press events are typically held, including the Oval Office, Air Force One and the president's home in Mar-A-Lago. The court left in place part of a lower-court order that required Trump to give AP access to events held in larger spaces, like the East Room. The ruling is a setback to the news organization's efforts to restore its access to the White House press pool, the small group of reporters and photographers who get access to a variety of White House spaces and other areas frequented by the president. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, largely granted the government's request to lift an April ruling from a district judge who blocked the ban. The decision from Rao and Katsas allows most of the ban to go back into effect while litigation over its constitutionality continues. The AP sued after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 27-page opinion, Rao wrote that 'these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Katsas signed onto Rao's opinion. The April injunction from district judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' Rao added. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, saying that the Supreme Court has never held that journalists or news organizations can be excluded from a forum based on their viewpoint. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. 'Looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.' The Trump administration has argued that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted.

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