A Radical Push to Suspend Constitutionally Protected Rights: The Far-Right's quest to Eliminate Habeas Corpus
"The Long-Fought Right-Wing Campaign to Portray Immigrants as Adversaries via the 'Invasion' Concept"
In a striking turn of events, a faction of the hard-right has been diligently pushing for a constitutional change, aiming to eradicate the protection of Habeas Corpus. This legal doctrine, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, holds that any person detained by the government has the right to challenge their detention in court.
Recently, top advisors to former President Trump, including Stephen Miller, threatened to invoke this drastic measure in response to perceived "invasion" by undocumented immigrants. This stance finds roots in a long-held, fringe legal theory that the hard-right has been striving to legitimize for over a decade.
The administration's assertions that the U.S. is "under invasion" have become the cornerstone of Trump's aggressive anti-immigrant campaign. This argument forms the central justification for the administration's deportation of approximately 140 Venezuelans to a Salvadorean prison, CECOT, without due process, while invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
Legal experts and families of many of the affected individuals have presented evidence that the detainees are not even members of the alleged gang, Tren De Aragua.1.
The rhetoric of invasion, once confined to white nationalist circles, has seeped into mainstream Republican campaign ads, leading many to believe an invasion via the southern border is underway.1
However, courts have consistently rejected this interpretation of an invasion, questioning whether the U.S. truly fits the constitutional or Alien Enemies Act definition of invasion.1
The Trump administration's aggressive legal push can be traced back to the years following Trump's departure from office. Former loyalists, including Ken Cuccinelli and Russell Vought, managed to garner support for this contentious theoretical framework among state Republican officials.1
While legal scholars largely reject the notion that the current wave of unauthorized immigration embodies the original definition of invasion, they express concern over the potential consequences of such a broad interpretation of the term. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to side with the Trump administration, it could pave the way for a president to act as an "autocratic dictator" by triggering extraordinary, monarchical powers based on "fictitious factual declarations."1
It's crucial to note that the Constitution grants the power to suspend habeas corpus to Congress in instances of rebellion or invasion. The Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law enacted during a naval conflict with France, also relies on the definition of an invasion. The Act allows the president to expel "aliens" during "any invasion or predatory incursion ... by any foreign nation or government."1
Habeas corpus has been suspended only a handful of times in the Constitution's near 240-year history, primarily during times of war or violence, such as the Civil War and the Moro uprising against U.S. control of the Philippines, and always with congressional approval.1
Nevertheless, the hard-right faction persists in their efforts, with potential implications not just for the protection of unauthorized immigrants, but for the civil liberties of U.S. citizens as well.
In the midst of heated political discourse and general-news headlines, the hard-right's quest to eradicate Habeas Corpus protection raises genuine concerns about crime-and-justice implications, as it could potentially lead to the erosion of civil liberties for both legal residents and citizens. A persistent hard-right faction, fueled by figures such as Stephen Miller and Ken Cuccinelli, continues to push for a constitutional change, seeking to legitimize a fringe legal theory that would pave the way for expansive powers based on disputed interpretations of invasion.
