Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/10/2025 1:36:02 AM PDT by fluorescence
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said Friday that the Trump administration is "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus, the right of a person to challenge their detention in court.
If carried out by President Donald Trump, the suspension of habeas corpus would be a dramatic escalation of his administration's immigration policy by significantly curtailing a right enshrined in the Constitution.
"First, you know, President Trump has talked about potentially suspending habeas corpus to take care of the illegal immigration problem. When could we see that happen in the future?" a reporter asked Miller as he spoke outside the White House.
"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 time of invasion," Miller answered.
"So, it's an option we're actively looking at," he continued.
[snip]
Miller said that the administration's decision would come down to whether the "courts do the right thing or not."
But legal experts say the issue is not as cut and dried as Miller suggests, and that a president cannot suspend habeas corpus without authorization from Congress.
"Miller also doesn't deign to mention that the near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus -- and that unilateral suspensions by the President are per se unconstitutional," Georgetown University Law Center professor Steve Vladeck writes in his Substack blog.
"He's suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases. In other words, it's not the judicial review itself that's imperiling national security; it's the possibility that the government might lose. That's not, and has never been, a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus," he writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
It’s not just how courts rule, it’s how courts administrate and whether they can do so efficiently.
The courts may need a preliminary hearing that says what is the minimum evidence or criteriua required for a Habeas hearing. And only grant full hearings to those who can justify a hearing.
It’s not just how courts rule, it’s how courts administrate and whether they can do so efficiently.
The courts may need a preliminary hearing that says what is the minimum evidence or criteriua required for a Habeas hearing. And only grant full hearings to those who can justify a hearing.
Suspending habeas corpus is a bad idea. It will be abused in many circumstances beyond migrants
Sadly, we're at a point where even SCOTUS has joined the communist revolution to destroy our Constructional Republic.
Desperate times. Desperate measures.
There is no rebellion or invasion, and the public safety does not require it.
Instead of suspending habeus corpus, suspend the courts!
That’s because ABC is not a credible news source...
In a word: No Way!
Stephen Miller explains that Article 3 courts lack jurisdiction over many immigration cases and calls their activist rulings a war on the executive branch and congress. ABC "News" did not quote that part.
The U.S. Supreme Court explains more authoritatively than Steven Miller.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep345206/
Shaughnessy v. U.S., ex rel Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 212 (1953)
It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903); Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50 (1950); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 598 (1953).
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep426067/
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976)
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U. S. 481, 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep457202/
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982)
Syllabus
The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction.Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
Opinion of the Court at 210:
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1976).
At 211, footnote 10:
Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States .... ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,'in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' Id., at 687. Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouvé, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).
At 211-212:
Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority."The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Yick Wo, supra, at 369 (emphasis added).
In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State. Wong Wing, supra, at 238. Our cases applying the Equal Protection Clause reflect the same territorial theme:
At 213:
There is simply no support for appellants' suggestion that "due process" is somehow of greater stature than "equal protection" and therefore available to a larger class of persons.To the contrary, each aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects an elementary limitation on state power. To permit a State to employ the phrase "within its jurisdiction" in order to identify subclasses of persons whom it would define as beyond its jurisdiction, thereby relieving itself of the obligation to assure that its laws are designed and applied equally to those persons, would undermine the principal purpose for which the Equal Protection Clause was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all castebased and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts here to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep533678/
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693-694 (2001)
But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 210 (1982); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1976); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 596-598, and n. 5 (1953); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886); cf. Mezei, supra, at 212 ("[A]liens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law"). Indeed, this Court has held that the Due Process Clause protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation, see Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896), though the nature of that protection may vary depending upon status and circumstance, see Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U. S. 21, 32-34 (1982); Johnson, supra, at 770.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep118356/
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369 (1886)
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep163228/
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 228, 238 (1896)
And in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, it was said: "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.' These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Applying this reasoning to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep189086/
The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 100-101 (1903)
Now, it has been settled that the power to exclude or expel aliens belonged to the political department of the Government, and that the order of an executive officer, invested with the power to determine finally the facts upon which an alien's right to enter this country, or remain in it, depended, was "due process of law, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, was at liberty to reexamine the evidence on which he acted, or to controvert its sufficiency." Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 713; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 13. S. 651, 659; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 547. But this court has never held, nor must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when executing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard the fundamental principles that inhere in "due process of law" as understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.One of these principles is that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without opportunity, at some time, to be heard, before such officers, in respect of the matters upon which that liberty depends-not necessarily an opportunity upon a regular, set occasion, and according to the forms of judicial procedure, but one that will secure the prompt, vigorous action contemplated by Congress, and at the same time be appropriate to the nature of the case upon which such officers are required to act. Therefore, it is not competent for the Secretary of the Treasury or any executive officer, at any time within the year limited by the statute, arbitrarily to cause an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here, to be taken into custody and deported without giving him all opportunity to be heard upon the questions involving his right to be and remain in the United States. No such arbitrary power can exist where the principles involved in due process of law are recognized.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep339033/
Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49-50 (1950)
But the difficulty with any argument premised on the proposition that the deportation statute does not require a hearing is that, without such hearing, there would be no constitutional authority for deportation. The constitutional requirement of procedural due process of law derives from the same source as Congress' power to legislate and, where applicable, permeates every valid enactment of that body. It was under compulsion of the Constitution that this Court long ago held that an antecedent deportation statute must provide a hearing at least for aliens who had not entered clandestinely and who had been here some time even if illegally. The Court said:"This is the reasonable construction of the acts of Congress here in question, and they need not be otherwise interpreted. In the case of all acts of Congress, such interpretation ought to be adopted as, without doing violence to the import of the words used. will bring them into harmony with the Constitution." The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101.We think that the limitation to hearings "required by statute" in § 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act exempts from that section's application only those hearings which administrative agencies may hold by regulation, rule, custom, or special dispensation; not those held by compulsion. We do not think the limiting words render the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable to hearings, the requirement for which has been read into a statute by the Court in order to save the statute from invalidity. They exempt hearings of less than statutory authority, not those of more than statutory authority. We would hardly attribute to Congress a purpose to be less scrupulous about the fairness of a hearing necessitated by the Constitution than one granted by it as a matter of expediency.
Indeed, to so construe the Immigration Act might again bring it into constitutional jeopardy. When the Constitution requires a hearing, it requires a fair one, one before a tribunal which meets at least currently prevailing standards of impartiality. A deportation hearing involves issues basic to human liberty and happiness and, in the present upheavals in lands to which aliens may be returned, perhaps to life itself.
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep344590/
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 597, 598 (1953).
Although it later may be established, as respondents contend, that petitioner can be expelled and deported, yet before his expulsion, he is entitled to notice of the nature of the charge and a hearing at least before an executive or administrative tribunal. Although Congress may prescribe conditions for his expulsion and deportation, not even Congress may expel him without allowing him a fair opportunity to be heard. For example, he is entitled to a fair chance to prove mistaken identity. At the present stage of the instant case, the issue is not one of exclusion, expulsion or deportation. It is one of legislative construction and of procedural due process.
From one view point maybe.
Resist. Bring back the illegal invaders. Law fare against numerous people. Murders and numerous crimes etc by illegals and some supporters.
Invasion and public safety have been unaddressed issues for many years.
Maybe you’ve just accepted them as normal or become numb to them? Those stolen from or killed or otherwise harmed havent.
How many more news articles do we need that show brainwashed people or paid people (law makers and protestors etc cashing in on continued invasion and threatening the public safety) in support of invasion or an invader who has broken laws and caused harm? Or related articles of crimes rising or resources squandered on invaders or people blocking lawful ICE work or.....
According to Pres. Trump, there now some 25 million illegal aliens living in the US.
How is that not an invasion?
How is Democrat lawlessness not a rebellion?
How is the explosion in crimes by illegal migrants not a matter of public safety?
During the Civil War both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis suspended habeas corpus. While Davis's Democrat congress had no trouble formally authorizing it, Lincoln's Republican Congress spent months debating before finally telling Lincoln it was OK.
Today's Democrats are just as much at war against the United States as were those of the 1860s.
They hate their country, they hate Americans.
8 million people crossing into our nation illegally is an invasion.
In your opinion, which don’t mean 💩
40 million illegals let in over decades by prior administration’s constitutes an invasion to me.
We have at least 12-15 million people here who illegally entered our nation, sneaking across our borders. How is that not an invasion? Regarding 'required' for public safety, I'm sure the family of Laken Riley would differ with your assessment that 'the public safety does not require it'. That's just one of MANY cases (e.g.):
Aleksandre Modebadze, 47, killed <2 weeks ago in his home by 3 illegals;
The case of Francisco Oropesa who had been deported 4 times before killing 5 neighbors, including a 9 year old boy.
The 13 million immigrants convicted of homicide who are now free in the US (ICE data).
The cases of illegal 'migrants' trying to breach US military bases (e.g. Quantico, Twentynine Palms).
These are just some examples. There are many more.
I would also argue that for some within our government who want to 'transform' America, pushing and facilitating rapid demographic shifts via illegal immigration is a form of rebellion against the US.
Actually the barriers were removed.
We don’t need any Habeans here.
I don’t support the suspension of habeas corpus by the President without Congressional authorization, but how can you credibly claim that there is not an invasion? What planet are you living on?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.