Stephen Miller Wants to Suspend Habeas Corpus. Here's Why That Should Terrify You

[Nevilledog]

https://jasonegenberg.substack.com/p/stephen-miller-wants-to-suspend-habeas



CHAPTER I: THE CAGE DOOR SLAMS QUIETLY

Let’s start with a phrase that doesn’t appear in the Constitution: “Just trust us.”

On May 9, 2025, Stephen Miller—a man who’s spent the better part of a decade fantasizing about autocracy with a thesaurus—stood outside the White House and said the words no American should ever ignore: the Trump administration is “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus. Why? Because, Miller says, undocumented immigration constitutes an “invasion.”

Now let’s pause here. Let’s slow this down. Let’s give the words the weight they deserve, because it doesn’t get more American than habeas corpus. And it doesn’t get more dangerous than a government eager to throw it in the shredder under the excuse of “emergency.”

“Habeas corpus”—Latin for “you shall have the body”—is the legal bedrock of civilization. It’s the right to challenge your detention in court. It’s the thing standing between liberty and a secret prison. It’s the difference between rule of law and the rule of power. You don’t need a law degree to get it—if the state locks you up, you get to ask: “Why?”

Miller wants to take that away. Not from everyone, not all at once. Just from “them.” From the people labeled “invaders.” Because when you can convince enough Americans that “they” aren’t really “us,” it gets a lot easier to burn the rulebook without anyone noticing the smell.

This isn't new for Miller. He’s tried “migrant caravans.” He’s tried “shithole countries.” Now it’s “invasion.” And once again, he’s reaching for the same match: emergency powers.

*snip*

[JohnSJ]

1. They are already doing it by ignoring court rulings on due process.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Are they?

They have violated the due process rights of numerous people before a court ruling, but I’m unaware of any violations after a court has ruled. (Remember, most of these rulings are quite narrow, and only apply to the state/district the ruling was made).

[JohnSJ]

4. I think Kilmar Abrego Garcia might disagree with your assessment.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Garcia's case is the sole exception I can think of

And the court order that is being passive-aggressively defied isn’t directly related to due process, but is a violation of his protected status that had been previously adjudicated.

Can you think of any other rulings specifically on due process that have been defied after the ruling was made?

I can’t.

[JohnSJ]

6. I am not trying to be argumentative but I think there are a lot more victims we haven't heard about.

https://immigrationimpact.com/2025/04/03/men-deported-el-salvador-stories-investigation/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g278yn4d3o

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Plenty of victims to be sure

But my point was that I’m not aware of any violations of habeas corpus after a court ruling, within the parameters of that ruling.

This administration acts with impunity until a court orders them to stop, then they play cocky and coy, but, AFAIK, don’t outright defy the order (the Garcia case being the notable exception).

[JohnSJ]

9. Understood.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. I'm not terrified

Miller is trolling the libs, quite successfully.

Miller himself admits that suspending habeas is only possible “if the courts do the right thing”.

Funny thing is, a federal court has already ruled that this administration’s invocation of the AEA is unlawful, and no “invasion” has taken place.

This ruling will be appealed, and I fully expect a 7-2 ruling from SCOTUS upholding the lower court.

Do not buy into the myth that Trump and his minions are omnipotent, and that the states and the people are powerless.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. Prof. Vladeck has some good analysis on the reason for this stunt/threat

Miller and trump are trying to intimidate the courts into ruling their way to avoid having habeas corpus suspended. trump and Miller have been taking actions that seem designed to piss off the cours.

Link to tweet

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/148-suspending-habeas-corpus

Fifth, and finally, Miller gives away the game when he says “a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.” It’s not just the mafia-esque threat implicit in this statement (“I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse”); it’s that he’s telling on himself: He’s suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases. In other words, it’s not the judicial review itself that’s imperiling national security; it’s the possibility that the government might lose. That’s not, and has never been, a viable argument for suspending habeas corpus. Were it otherwise, there’d be no point to having the writ in the first place—let alone to enshrining it in the Constitution.

If the goal is just to try to bully and intimidate federal judges into acquiescing in more unlawful activity by the Trump administration, that’s shameful enough. But suggesting that the President can unilaterally cut courts out of the loop solely because they’re disagreeing with him is suggesting that judicial review—indeed, that the Constitution itself—is just a convenience. Something tells me that even federal judges and justices who might otherwise be sympathetic to the government’s arguments on the merits in some of these cases will be troubled by the implication that their authority depends entirely upon the President’s beneficence.

***

It’s certainly possible that this doesn’t go anywhere. Indeed, I hope that turns out to be true. But Miller’s comments strike me as a rather serious ratcheting up of the anti-court rhetoric coming out of this administration—and an ill-conceived one at that.