Context:

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, announced that the Trump administration is contemplating the suspension of habeas corpus, a legal process that allows detainees to challenge their detention, claiming that the current immigration situation constitutes an invasion. The administration argues that this would enable them to bypass due process protections for migrants under the guise of national safety. However, legal experts and judges, including a Trump appointee, have opposed this view, stating that the current conditions do not meet the constitutional criteria of an invasion. While the Constitution does not explicitly require congressional approval for such a suspension, historical precedence and legal interpretations suggest legislative involvement is necessary. This move is part of broader efforts by the administration to enforce stricter immigration controls, which has led to tensions with the judiciary, as highlighted by Chief Justice John Roberts' remarks on the importance of judicial independence and constitutional interpretation.

Dive Deeper:

• Stephen Miller revealed that the Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus, arguing that the current state of illegal border-crossings constitutes an invasion, which could justify bypassing standard due process protections.

• Suspension of habeas corpus would allow the government to detain migrants indefinitely without allowing them to legally challenge their detention, a measure that has historically been reserved for times of actual war or invasion.

• Multiple judges, including those appointed by President Trump, have rejected the administration's argument, asserting that the situation does not meet the legal definition of an invasion by a foreign power, thereby not justifying such extreme measures.

• While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mandate congressional approval for suspending habeas corpus, it is generally understood that the legislature should play a significant role in such decisions, as emphasized by past legal interpretations and dissents from conservative justices.

• The Trump administration's stance on immigration has faced significant challenges from the judiciary, with President Trump publicly criticizing judges and Miller referring to adverse court rulings as a 'judicial coup', underscoring the tension between the executive and judicial branches.

• Chief Justice John Roberts, in a public address, reinforced the judiciary's role as a coequal branch of government, tasked with interpreting the Constitution and checking excesses by Congress and the executive, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence amidst the administration's escalated efforts.

• The administration's legal strategy includes invoking the Aliens Enemies Act to expedite deportations, but this approach too has faced judicial pushback, as courts have consistently ruled against states' attempts to use illegal immigration as grounds for bypassing federal laws since the 1990s.