Simple Smart Seminar
  • Stock
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Tech News
  • Editor’s Pick
Editor's PickInvesting

Miller Says We Can Suspend Habeas Corpus Because of “Invasion”— But His Own Words Belie That Theory

by May 19, 2025
May 19, 2025 0 comment

Stephen Richer

stephen miller

Earlier this month, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that the Trump administration is “actively looking at” suspending the writ of habeas corpus for suspected illegal immigrants. 

The constitutionally enshrined right of habeas corpus traces its origins back to the Magna Carta and it guarantees that those detained by the United States government can challenge that detention in court.

In Federalist Paper 84, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the “establishment of the writ of habeas corpus” is a “greater security to liberty and republicanism” than nearly any other provision in the Constitution. 

Nearly 200 years later, the United States Supreme Court described the writ as “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.”

Given the importance of habeas corpus in protecting the rights of the individual from the abuse of government power, it should come as no surprise that the Cato Institute has consistently defended the writ. In 2007, David Boaz listed it among the rights most “indispensable to securing all the others.” My criminal procedure professor, libertarian luminary, and Cato adjunct scholar Richard Epstein extolled the importance of the writ in 2008 and reminded readers of The New York Times that the writ extends to all “persons,” not just citizens. 

Miller and the Trump administration base their alleged authority on Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, which reads, “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.”

And indeed, this provision, the “suspension clause,” has been used four times in US history. Once during the Civil War, once during Reconstruction when the Ku Klux Klan overran parts of South Carolina, once in the Philippines during a rebellion by the native population against US presence, and once immediately after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

In each instance, however, the president acted only with the approval of Congress—although in the case of Abraham Lincoln, who faced the outbreak of an actual civil war, the approval was given belatedly.

As my Cato colleague Mike Fox recently said on TV, if Miller and Trump try to suspend habeas corpus, they will likely lose in the courts. 

Among other things, the government would have to overcome Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsefeld (“Although this provision does not state that suspension must be effected by, or authorized by, a legislative act, it has been so understood, consistent with English practice and the Clause’s placement in Article I”). As well as both an unfavorable online article and an unfavorable law review article from Justice Amy Coney Barrett (“it does require Congress to decide … that an invasion or rebellion has occurred and that protecting the public safety may require the exercise of emergency power.”)

Additionally, Professor Marjorie Cohn of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law points out that the government will have to contend with four recent rulings from federal district courts that make clear that we are not currently suffering a “rebellion or invasion.” One decision from Texas stated, “surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution.” And a federal judge in Colorado called the government’s definition of invasion “unpersuasive.” 

There’s no shortage of highly detailed legal takedowns of Miller’s comment. For example, see Georgetown University Law Professor Steve Vladeck’s article, Jacob Sullum in Reason, Bill Galston at the Wall Street Journal, or a piece in The New Yorker by Ruth Marcus.

I have nothing to say about the law beyond what Vladeck and others have already said.

But I will point out an amusing paradox that damages the government’s interests here, as well as in the Alien Enemies Act cases. At the same time that the government is making legal arguments that we are suffering an “invasion” and therefore can suspend habeas corpus or invoke the Alien Enemies Act, the government is also trumpeting that it has effectively put an end to illegal immigration.

In February, Miller claimed that illegal border crossing had decreased by 95 percent in the first 11 days of Trump’s second term, calling it “the biggest and most successful change in any area of law enforcement that this nation has ever seen.”

That same month, President Trump celebrated by saying that border crossings were “the lowest ever recorded.”

“Border czar” Tom Homan claimed that in the first two weeks of February 2025, illegal migrant encounters numbered only 359 per day, down from 4,800 per day in 2024.

So, even if we accept that large numbers of illegal border crossings constitute an “invasion”—the courts don’t—then the administration is still on shaky legal grounds because it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Which is it? Are we being invaded? Or has the administration already largely secured the border?

My recommendation: drop the threats, respect long-established legal rights, work with Congress to improve our immigration policies and border security, and then brag about that if successfully accomplished.

But I won’t hold my breath.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
previous post
Russia bombards Ukraine with drones hours after Trump announces talks with Putin
next post
White House says Trump ‘trusts his physicians’ following Biden’s cancer announcement

You may also like

The Best Five Sectors, #28

July 20, 2025

Week Ahead: NIFTY Violates Short-Term Supports; Stays Tentative...

July 19, 2025

The Real Drivers of This Market: AI, Semis...

July 19, 2025

July Strength, Late-Summer Caution: 3 Charts to Watch

July 18, 2025

Three Stocks in Focus: One Old Favorite, One...

July 18, 2025

Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Income Tax...

July 18, 2025

What Governor Beshear’s Comments Miss About Addiction and...

July 18, 2025

Friday Feature: Positive Tomorrows

July 18, 2025

Public Corruption and Federalism

July 18, 2025

June BLS Price Index Reports Do Not Support...

July 18, 2025

    Fill Out & Get More Relevant News


    Stay ahead of the market and unlock exclusive trading insights & timely news. We value your privacy - your information is secure, and you can unsubscribe anytime. Gain an edge with hand-picked trading opportunities, stay informed with market-moving updates, and learn from expert tips & strategies.

    Recent Posts

    • The Best Five Sectors, #28

      July 20, 2025
    • Week Ahead: NIFTY Violates Short-Term Supports; Stays Tentative Devoid Of Any Major Triggers

      July 19, 2025
    • The Real Drivers of This Market: AI, Semis & Robotics

      July 19, 2025
    • July Strength, Late-Summer Caution: 3 Charts to Watch

      July 18, 2025
    • Three Stocks in Focus: One Old Favorite, One Mag Name, and a Dow Comeback Story

      July 18, 2025
    • These HOT Industry Groups are Fueling This Secular Bull Market

      July 17, 2025
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 simplesmartseminar.com | All Rights Reserved

    Simple Smart Seminar
    • Stock
    • Investing
    • Politics
    • Tech News
    • Editor’s Pick