Washington, D.C. — The Trump administration is reportedly exploring the possibility of suspending habeas corpus, a fundamental legal provision that allows individuals to challenge their detention. Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, made this statement during a press briefing on Friday, stirring significant concern among legal experts and civil rights advocates.

Miller emphasized that the U.S. Constitution permits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion” as a measure necessary for public safety. He indicated that the administration is closely monitoring judicial responses to its immigration policies, suggesting that actions may depend on whether courts align with their approach.

Historically, the suspension of habeas corpus has been rare, occurring only four times in U.S. history, with Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War being the most notable example. Other instances included measures against the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800s, actions during the Philippine-American War in 1905, and post-Pearl Harbor responses. Legal analysts warn that such a drastic step could undermine the nation’s legal framework, particularly regarding immigration enforcement.

Miller’s statements connect to an aggressive immigration agenda, characterized by heightened efforts to deport undocumented individuals without granting them the opportunity to contest their removals in court. This approach has raised alarms among critics, who argue it poses a direct threat to the rule of law. The administration’s past actions have already led to significant pushback from federal judges, who have intervened in several cases where deportation attempts were made without due process.

Notably, many individuals facing deportation under the current administration—such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk—have successfully filed habeas petitions, challenging their removals. These cases underscore the growing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary over immigration enforcement tactics.

The administration has also turned to the Alien Enemies Act, a law from the 18th century, to expedite deportations during what they deem a time of war, a characterization that many legal experts dispute. These claims are particularly focused on groups such as the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, which the administration cites as a justification for its actions. However, numerous judges have dismissed the notion that the U.S. is under invasion, attempting to stall removals based on this rationale.

While courts attempt to rein in the administration’s overreach, Trump has publicly criticized judicial rulings against him, raising concerns about respect for the judicial system and the implications for the checks and balances that underpin American democracy. The escalating rhetoric and potential policy changes represent a critical moment in the ongoing debate over immigration and civil liberties in the United States.