During a House Committee on Homeland Security budgetary hearing in Washington, DC on May 14, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem asserted that President Donald Trump possesses the absolute authority to deport individuals without adhering to due process. This statement followed her inaccurate definition of the term ‘habeas corpus,’ which traditionally represents the constitutional right allowing individuals to contest their detention by the government in court.
The issue of habeas corpus was a focal point during a Senate hearing where Noem’s understanding was scrutinized. In the context of the hearing, it was highlighted that habeas corpus serves as a fundamental right distinguishing free societies, such as the United States, from more authoritarian regimes.
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, provided a comment suggesting that, although the power to suspend habeas corpus technically resides with Congress, historical precedents demonstrate that presidents have occasionally taken such actions during national crises, with legal validation occurring subsequently.
Noem’s position is particularly significant given her leadership role in overseeing a rigorous campaign of detentions and deportations, which courts have determined to infringe upon the detainees’ habeas corpus rights. This has sparked additional debate, especially following White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller’s suggestion to suspend habeas corpus privileges for migrants in times of perceived invasion.
In March of the same year, President Trump issued an executive proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime statute. This proclamation identified a Venezuelan street gang, Tren de Aragua, as orchestrating an invasion of the United States. It stipulated that any Venezuelan aged 14 and above, affiliated with the gang and lacking legal residency, could be deported and deemed hostile to the nation.
The U.S. authorities acted swiftly, detaining and deporting numerous Venezuelans accused of gang affiliation, thereby denying them the opportunity to challenge their deportations in court. This led to a legal challenge from a group of Venezuelan detainees, who argued they were deprived of adequate time and resources to contest their detention, thus violating their habeas corpus rights.
The Supreme Court intervened, blocking the removal of these detainees under the Alien Enemies Act. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the administration failed to provide sufficient time or resources for the detainees to dispute their deportations, noting that the notification given—approximately 24 hours prior—was insufficient for due process.
Historically, the suspension of habeas corpus has been an infrequent occurrence since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, having happened only four times, with Congress authorizing the suspension in three of those instances.
