Context:

The Trump administration, led by Stephen Miller, is contemplating suspending the writ of habeas corpus for detained migrants, arguing that it can be done in times of invasion. This drastic measure is part of their broader efforts to expedite mass deportations, despite legal challenges and opposition from the courts. Historically, such suspensions have required congressional approval, with the constitution only allowing it in cases of rebellion or invasion, a point contested by legal experts. Previous attempts to classify immigration as an invasion have been rejected by federal judges, who continue to block deportations under similar claims. The administration maintains that immigration courts fall under the executive branch, thus supposedly granting them the power to proceed with these actions without judicial interference.

Dive Deeper:

• Stephen Miller, a top aide in the Trump administration, stated that suspending habeas corpus for detained migrants is being considered as part of their immigration crackdown, citing the constitution's allowance during an invasion.

• The potential suspension of habeas corpus represents a significant escalation in the administration's legal battles over mass deportations and asserts a broad interpretation of executive power.

• Legal experts, such as Georgetown University's Stephen Vladeck, highlight that the constitution generally authorizes only Congress to suspend habeas corpus, raising questions about the legality of the administration's plans.

• Historical precedents for suspending habeas corpus have involved specific congressional statutes, except during the Civil War when President Lincoln acted unilaterally, prompting Congress to later grant explicit approval.

• The administration has previously used the rhetoric of invasion to justify harsh immigration policies, but federal courts have blocked deportations under these claims, refusing to recognize the influx of migrants as an invasion.

• Despite repeated legal setbacks, the administration argues that immigration courts are under the executive branch's jurisdiction, suggesting that their decisions on deportations may not be subject to judicial review.

• The Supreme Court and other federal judges have consistently challenged the administration's aggressive deportation tactics, underlining the ongoing tension between executive actions and judicial oversight.