Skip to main content

What is Habeas Corpus? Why Does It Matter?


The Trump administration floated an idea in recent weeks: suspending habeas corpus.

Why? Because over and over again—including in the American Civil Liberties Union’s challenge against President Donald Trump’s illegal use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process—courts hearing habeas corpus cases have stopped the administration from carrying out massive violations of people’s constitutional rights. To get around this obstacle, administration officials now say they are looking into suspending habeas corpus altogether.

What is this arcane-sounding legal device? How is does it stand in the way of illegal government action?

What is Habeas Corpus?

Habeas corpus, known as the “Great Writ,” is a centuries-old legal instrument. The phrase is Latin for “you have the body.” At its core, it is a demand that the government bring any detainee before a court and explain why it has the authority to detain the person.

The U.S. Constitution enshrines this protection in Article I, Section 9, stating that the writ “shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” That’s a high bar, and for good reason: Habeas corpus has stood for centuries – even before the United States was founded – as a barrier against tyranny, It prevents kings, presidents, and prime ministers from locking people up without cause or review.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote, “[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.” He therefore viewed the guarantee of habeas corpus perhaps “[a] greater securit[y] to liberty and republicanism than any [the Constitution] contains.” In fact, habeas corpus was one of the few individual rights in the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was adopted.

What Does Habeas Corpus Protect?

Habeas corpus ensures that no person — citizen or not — can be held by the government without the right to challenge their detention before a judge. It is a cornerstone of due process.

Among other things, it protects against:

  • Indefinite detention without charge
  • Imprisonment without a fair hearing
  • Detention based on unlawful or discriminatory grounds
  • Unlawful removal or transfer
  • Government abuse of wartime or national security powers

Whether the government is detaining someone at Guantánamo Bay, in a Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility, or under a wartime statute like the Alien Enemies Act, habeas corpus is a constitutionally guaranteed pathway to a fair legal process.

How is President Trump Threatening Court Review and the Rule of Law?

President Trump is attempting to revive arcane laws to sidestep constitutional safeguards that prevent the detainment and deportation of individuals without providing their day in court.

His administration has:

  • Invoked the 1798 Alien and Enemies Act to justify mass detentions and deportations to a torture prison in El Salvador.
  • Locked up protesters for their protected speechand argued that they must sit in jail for years before seeing a federal judge.
  • Deported people in violation of court orders and without hearings, notice, or access to legal counsel.
  • Argued that these individuals have no right to challenge their detention.

But the courts have repeatedly found that habeas corpus guarantees a judicial forum to check these abuses and protect the rights of noncitizens.

Trump’s moves echo past abuses of power. In 2006, President George W. Bush and Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which sought to strip habeas rights for Guantánamo detainees. The Supreme Court struck it down in Boumediene v. Bush, reaffirming that habeas corpus cannot be bypassed simply by labeling someone an “enemy.”

President Trump repeatedly pushed that boundary during his first term — attempting to deny detained people access to the courts, defending the right of indefinite detention of noncitizens without meaningful judicial review, and even floating the idea of sending terrorism suspects to Guantánamo Bay. Now, his officials are going even further

How Does Habeas Corpus Prevent Trump's Unlawful Deportations?

To date, the Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed in the ACLU’s cases that anyone detained under the Alien and Enemies Act still has the right to file habeas petitions.

We have worked to vindicate that right — filing multiple habeas cases across the country one challenging unlawful detention under Trump’s sweeping executive order. Habeas corpus protection is what stands in the way of the government being able to arbitrarily take people from their communities in this country and send them to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

A president may claim they have the power to imprison people without charge or review, but justice demands a different answer. Habeas corpus thus stands as a crucial line of defense: for freedom and against abuse of power. And when that habeas corpus itself comes under attack, it’s up to all of us to defend it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...