
Donald Trump team mulls suspending habeas corpus to speed deportations; What is it?
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller says President Donald Trump is looking for ways to expand its legal power to deport migrants who are in the United States illegally. To achieve that, he says the administration is 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus, the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.
Such a move would be aimed at migrants as part of the Republican president's broader crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border.
'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,' Miller told reporters outside the White House on Friday.
'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.'
The Latin term means 'that 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.
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.'
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 amid the Civil War, beginning in 1861 to detain suspected spies and Confederate sympathizers. He ignored a ruling from Roger Taney, who was the Supreme Court chief justice but was acting in the case as a circuit judge. 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 of groups opposing 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.'
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 facing an invasion, let alone presenting extraordinary threats to public safety.
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 U.S. 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 amid questions about whether the country is truly facing an invasion.
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 Friday.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 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 from U.S. custody.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to the US, charged with transporting people in the country illegally
WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador became a political flashpoint in the Trump administration's stepped-up immigration enforcement, was returned to the United States on Friday to face criminal charges related to what the Trump administration said was a massive human smuggling operation that brought immigrants into the country illegally. His abrupt release from El Salvador closes one chapter and opens another in a saga that yielded a remarkable, months-long standoff between Trump officials and the courts over a deportation that officials initially acknowledged was done in error but then continued to stand behind in apparent defiance of orders by judges to facilitate his return to the U.S. The development occurred after U.S. officials presented El Salvador President Nayib Bukele with an arrest warrant for federal charges in Tennessee accusing Abrego Garcia of playing a key role in smuggling immigrants into the country for money. He is expected to be prosecuted in the U.S. and, if convicted, will be returned to his home country of El Salvador at the conclusion of the case, officials said Friday. 'This is what American justice looks like,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in announcing Abrego Garcia's return and the unsealing of a grand jury indictment. A court appearance in Nashville was set for Friday. Democrats and immigrant rights group had pressed for Abrego Garcia's release, with several lawmakers — including Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia had lived for years — even traveling to El Salvador to visit him. A federal judge had ordered him to be returned in April and the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by directing the government to work to bring him back. But the news that Abrego Garcia, who had an immigration court order preventing his deportation to his native country over fears he would face persecution from local gangs, was being brought back for the purpose of prosecution was greeted with dismay by his lawyers. 'The government disappeared Kilmar to a foreign prison in violation of a court order. Now, after months of delay and secrecy, they're bringing him back, not to correct their error but to prosecute him. This shows that they were playing games with the court all along,' said one of his lawyers, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. The indictment, filed last month and unsealed Friday, lays out a string of allegations that date back to 2016 but are only being disclosed now, nearly three months after Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported and following the Trump administration's repeated claims that he is a criminal. It accuses him of smuggling throughout the U.S. thousands of people living in the country illegally, including members of the violent MS-13 gang, from Central America and abusing women he was transporting. A co-conspirator also alleged that he participated in the killing of a gang member's mother in El Salvador, prosecutors wrote in papers urging the judge to keep him behind bars while he awaits trial. The indictment does not charge him in connection with that allegation. 'Later, as part of his immigration proceedings in the United States, the defendant claimed he could not return to El Salvador because he was in fear of retribution from the 18th Street gang,' the detention memo states. 'While partially true — the defendant, according to the information received by the Government, was in fear of retaliation by the 18th Street gang — the underlying reason for the retaliation was the defendant's own actions in participating in the murder of a rival 18th Street gang member's mother," prosecutors wrote. The charges stem from a 2022 vehicle stop in which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. A report released by the Department of Homeland Security in April states that none of the people in the vehicle had luggage, while they listed the same address as Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime, while the officers allowed him to drive on with only a warning about an expired driver's license, according to the DHS report. The report said he was traveling from Texas to Maryland, via Missouri, to bring in people to perform construction work. In response to the report's release in April, Abrego Garcia's wife said in a statement that he sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, 'so it's entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing.' Abrego Garcia's background and personal life have been a source of dispute and contested facts. Immigrant rights advocates have cast his arrest as emblematic of an administration whose deportation policy is haphazard and error-prone, while Trump officials have pointed to prior interactions with police and described him as a gang member who fits the mold they are determined to expel from the country. Abrego Garcia lived in the U.S. for roughly 14 years, during which he worked construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities, according to court records. Trump administration officials said he was deported based on a 2019 accusation from Maryland police that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said. A U.S. immigration judge subsequently shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs. The Trump administration deported him there in March, later describing the mistake as 'an administrative error' but insisting he was in MS-13. Abrego Garcia's return comes days after the Trump administration complied with a court order to return a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico despite his fears of being harmed there. The man, identified in court papers as O.C.G, was the first person known to have been returned to U.S. custody after deportation since the start of President Donald Trump's second term.


Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Victims' can challenge acquittal under Sec 372 CrPC: Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Referring to provision of Section 372 of CrPC which was amended in 2009 on recommendation of Law Commission to allow a victim to file appeal, Supreme Court has held that a "victim" of an offence like in cheque bouncing cases has the right to challenge the order of acquittal of the accused under CrPC and corresponding Section 413 of BNSS. Differentiating between Sec 372 & Sec 378 (which allows a complainant to file appeal), a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Sharma said Section 378 circumcised the right to file an appeal which is not the case with Section 372. "The proviso to Sec 372 of CrPC was inserted in statute book with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 of CrPC, SC said victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition and the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with right of an accused who after being convicted has a right to file an appeal under Section 374 of CrPC. TNN


Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
UP CM adviser holds talks with Goswami community over Banke Bihari Corridor
Agra: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath's adviser Awanish Kumar Awasthi on Friday, chaired a meeting at the tourist facilitation centre in Vrindavan, to discuss issues related to the proposed Banke Bihari Corridor with members of the Goswami community involved in the management of the temple, local shopkeepers and residents. Speaking to media persons after the meeting, Awasthi said the proposed project aims to enhance facilities for pilgrims, and efficiently manage the increasing pilgrim footfall in the Mathura-Vrindavan area. "The number of pilgrims visiting the area is rising exponentially. Today's meeting focused on how to effectively cater to this surge while ensuring public confidence and participation in the planning process. This was the first round of discussions, and it was very productive," he said. On concerns raised by the Goswami community regarding the project, Awasthi said several suggestions had been put forth during the meeting. "The district magistrate and other officials will carefully evaluate these inputs. The state govt aims to proceed with the most inclusive and best possible option to take the project forward," Awasthi said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Established in 1862 in the heart of Vrindavan, the Shri Banke Bihari temple is administered by Shebaits — a hereditary priesthood responsible for daily rituals and temple management. It remains one of North India's most visited pilgrimage sites. The Supreme Court's May 15 verdict came amid ongoing protests by members of the Goswami community and local residents, who have opposed both the corridor project and the formation of Banke Bihari Temple Trust. The court's decision, delivered by a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma, cleared the way for the govt to move ahead with its Rs 500 crore redevelopment plan, which includes acquiring nearly five acres of land near the shrine, using temple funds. Calls for redevelopment intensified after a stampede-like incident during Janmashtami celebrations in 2022, left two dead. In Sept 2023, the Allahabad high court directed the state govt to implement a corridor plan for improved crowd management and safety. While officials claim stakeholders were consulted, Shebaits and local residents have alleged they were excluded from the planning process. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !