The recent hints from a key figure in the American government regarding the potential suspension of habeas corpus have stirred significant concern among citizens.
Habeas corpus, the legal principle allowing individuals to challenge their detention in court, stands as a fundamental pillar of democracy that trace back even before the Magna Carta of 1215.
According to Robin Levinson King from the BBC, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, has referred to habeas corpus as a ‘privilege’ that could be suspended for the purpose of streamlining the detention and deportation of immigrants.
This perspective raises alarms, as the implications could extend far beyond the realm of immigration to affect all American citizens.
The U.S. Constitution articulates in Article One that ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.’
Historically, the suspension of this crucial right has rarely been invoked, with the notable exception of the Civil War.
Shortly after taking office, President Abraham Lincoln faced threats to the nation’s capital from Marylanders, prompting him to suspend habeas corpus between Philadelphia and Washington D.C.
This led to the arrest of John Merryman, a Marylander accused of training a secessionist militia.
In the ensuing conflict, Lincoln and Chief Justice Roger Taney clashed over the authority to suspend habeas corpus.
Taney contended that only Congress possessed the power to enact such a suspension, a sentiment echoed by several Founding Fathers, including Chief Justice John Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson.
Article I, which outlines legislative powers, aligns with Taney’s interpretation.
In defense of his actions, Lincoln suggested that the Constitution did not explicitly delegate the suspension authority to Congress and that the Founders would not have wanted to wait for a congressional session during times of national crisis.
Despite Taney’s ruling, Lincoln moved forward, ignoring the Supreme Court’s stance.
While Lincoln is often heralded as a hero and Taney viewed as a villain, history reveals that the Supreme Court largely sided with Taney’s assertion that suspending habeas corpus is a power reserved for Congress, not the executive branch.
As noted by History.com editors, five years after Lincoln’s order, a different Supreme Court upheld Taney’s ruling, establishing that it is Congress and not the president who holds the power to suspend habeas corpus.
This decision also emphasized that civilians should not be subjected to military courts, even in wartime.
Additionally, according to the BBC, it has been determined that both U.S. citizens and non-citizens possess the right to habeas corpus, a ruling that the Supreme Court extended in 2008 to include non-citizens detained outside the country, such as those held at Guantanamo Bay.
Currently, with no rebellion or genuine invasion faced by the nation, the rights of all Americans are at risk should the government pursue the suspension of this critical legal protection simply for political gain in immigration politics.
Allowing leaders to jeopardize established freedoms under the guise of security could lead to regrettable consequences reminiscent of the Civil War’s excesses.
Ultimately, trading away fundamental freedoms may give the government unchecked power to wield against its own citizens, a course that could have devastating effects.
image source from：https://cobbcountycourier.com/2025/06/what-suspending-habeas-corpus-might-mean-for-americans/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAqKggAIhAOpFOaOH8eAUh_Z-jMkzYzKhQICiIQDqRTmjh_HgFIf2fozJM2MzCsmeUD&utm_content=rundown
