### Stephen Miller's Call to Suspend Habeas Corpus Draws Legal Criticism

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently indicated that the Trump administration is contemplating the suspension of habeas corpus—the constitutional right allowing individuals to contest the legality of their detention. This move is in response to several legal setbacks the administration has faced in immigration cases. Miller's statement on May 9 has sparked widespread legal condemnation, highlighting both constitutional and factual inaccuracies in his argument.

The principle of habeas corpus, known as "The Great Writ," is a fundamental aspect of American law enshrined in the Suspension Clause of the Constitution. This clause specifies that habeas corpus can only be suspended "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" when public safety is at risk. Legal experts argue that Miller's suggestion turns this clause on its head. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck emphasized that using unfavorable court rulings as a reason to suspend habeas corpus undermines the constitutional framework.

Moreover, Miller's assertion ignores a critical constitutional detail: only Congress—not the President—has the authority to suspend habeas corpus. This understanding is rooted in historical practice and constitutional interpretation. For instance, in the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent that suspension should be enacted or authorized by legislative action. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has similarly agreed that Congress alone holds this power, underscoring that it is delineated in Article I of the Constitution, which outlines Congressional powers.

Historically, the suspension of habeas corpus in the United States has been a rare and grave measure, occurring only four times since 1789. Each instance involved significant crises, such as the Civil War, actions against the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction, quelling an Indigenous rebellion in the Philippines, and after the Pearl Harbor attack during World War II.

Miller's justification for considering this drastic measure rests on the claim that there is an "invasion" at the southern U.S. border. However, several federal courts and legal experts have rejected this characterization. For example, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. in Texas and Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney in Colorado have both dismissed the administration's claims of an invasion, with rulings in early May underscoring that the situation at the southern border does not meet the constitutional definition of an invasion.

Furthermore, the Immigration and Nationality Act does allow for appellate review in immigration cases, contrary to Miller's statements. The Supreme Court has affirmed that non-citizens held within the U.S. borders do retain the right to seek writs of habeas corpus.

Stephen Miller's comments reflect a broader trend within the Trump administration to overlook constitutional constraints when dealing with immigration issues. Despite a Supreme Court packed with conservative justices, the administration faces significant legal hurdles in its efforts to bypass established legal protections for migrants. Legal experts and federal judges continue to act as key barriers against potential governmental overreach.