Now you've taken to lying outright. No supreme court ruling has ever upheld Lincoln's claimed power to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally. Two supreme court rulings have rejected the notion that the power he exercised belongs to the president though, and five federal courts ruled directly that Lincoln's suspension itself was unconstitutional.
You don't read very well, do you? The Taney Court upheld Lincoln's exercise of war powers in the Prize Cases (1863). Farber writes (p 140-141), quoting from the opinion:
"'If war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.' Whether the hostile force is a foreign invader or a rebellious state, 'it is none the less war.' When the rebellion burst out, the president 'was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.'"
Farber adds, "The Court roundly rejected the argument that 'insurgents who have risen in rebellion against their sovereign' are 'not enemies because they are traitors.' As a belligerent, the United States was entitled 'not only to coerce the other by direct force, but also to cripple his resources by the seizure or destruction of his property.' this applied to everyone living in Confederate territory. 'They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors.'"
"No supreme court ruling has ever upheld Lincoln's claimed power to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally. Two supreme court rulings have rejected the notion that the power he exercised belongs to the president though..."
No Supreme Court ever directly ruled on the constitutionality of Lincoln's action with regard to the suspension (of the privilege of) the writ of habeas corpus.
Supreme Court quotation time bump. Cough it up, capitan -- you got a ruling? Post it now.