### Homeland Security Secretary Misunderstands Habeas Corpus, Sparks Senate Debate

During a recent Senate hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense scrutiny over her misunderstanding of habeas corpus. This follows controversial comments from White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, who suggested suspending due process for migrants.

Noem incorrectly stated, "Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country." This definition stood corrected by Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., who clarified that habeas corpus actually guarantees a person's constitutional right to challenge their detention by the government in court.

The exchange was noteworthy, particularly given Noem's role overseeing an aggressive campaign of detentions and deportations. Courts have repeatedly found these actions violate detainees' habeas corpus rights. Following up on Noem's claim, DHS assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin pointed out historical instances where presidents like Lincoln, Grant, FDR, and Bush have suspended habeas corpus during crises, though Congress constitutionally holds that power.

Recently, Stephen Miller suggested using the suspension of habeas corpus for migrants, citing the privilege can be suspended during times of invasion. In March, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act from the 18th century, claiming that a Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua, posed an invasion threat to the United States. This allowed for rapid detentions and deportations of Venezuelans, purportedly members of the gang, without due process.

However, the Supreme Court intervened, siding with detainees who argued they were denied the resources and time needed to contest their deportations. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the administration had violated their habeas corpus rights by failing to provide adequate notice and information for legal challenges.

Historically, habeas corpus has only been suspended four times since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, with Congress authorizing three of those suspensions. The recent actions and discussions around suspending this constitutional right have reignited debates on its critical role in safeguarding individual liberties.