A senior White House lawyer cautioned President Trump against suspending habeas corpus protections for illegal immigrants, warning it would likely lead to a significant constitutional challenge. Internal memos revealed debates over executive power, with one lawyer detailing the historical and constitutional safeguards of habeas corpus, noting its suspension is permissible only in extreme circumstances and typically requires congressional approval. Another memo addressed the Insurrection Act, acknowledging its broad presidential authority but warning of legal challenges that could cause delays. Ultimately, neither of these drastic proposals was implemented, though the administration later pursued more aggressive detention policies that resulted in extensive litigation.
Read More
This idea alarmed others in the Trump administration, who saw it as legally weak and likely to be overturned in court. Among them was Will Scharf, a right-wing lawyer serving as White House staff secretary, who was the last person who saw paperwork before it reached the president’s desk. In April, Scharf wrote secret memos to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles warning of the legal dangers of suspending habeas corpus and invoking the Insurrection Act. He further cautioned against invoking the act in October, highlighting its role as an exception to the prohibition on domestic military use and noting its unprecedented application against immigration protesters.
Read More
A wave of habeas corpus petitions has flooded Michigan’s U.S. District Courts, primarily from individuals detained at the North Lake Processing Center. Judges have largely granted these petitions since January 2025, compelling the government to provide bond hearings or release immigrants, a move the Trump administration criticizes as “rogue” judicial action. This surge in filings stems from a policy shift allowing mandatory detention for immigrants without legal status, challenging established due process rights and sparking legal battles over the interpretation of immigration law. The outcomes of these cases are increasingly impactful, with some individuals granted release or bond, while others, despite winning their petitions, remain detained due to being deemed flight risks.
Read More
A federal appeals court has upheld a Trump administration immigration policy that ends bond eligibility for individuals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who entered the country without inspection. This policy instructs ICE agents to deny bond for such individuals, detaining them for the duration of their removal proceedings unless granted parole. The ruling by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit determined that the government’s interpretation of the law is correct, allowing for this mandatory detention. This decision contradicts the stance of numerous lower court judges and immigrant advocates, who argue the policy misinterprets statutes and departs from historical precedent.
Read More
Texas Representative Nicole Collier filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that her confinement in the state Capitol by the Republican majority is unlawful. Collier, along with other Democrats, had previously left the state to block the enactment of new congressional maps. House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Republican, subsequently required Democratic legislators to sign a form agreeing to 24-hour police surveillance, which Collier refused to do. Collier’s lawsuit contends that the legislature lacks the power to detain a lawmaker based on concerns about future absences, thus making her confinement illegal.
Read More
The Library of Congress’s online copy of the U.S. Constitution was briefly modified to remove the section guaranteeing the right to challenge detention, coinciding with the Trump administration’s consideration of suspending habeas corpus. Government officials attributed the deletion to a technical “glitch,” prompting internal review and correction. The timing of the error raised suspicion, given the administration’s efforts to undermine constitutional rights and Trump’s ongoing attempt to control the Library of Congress. The deleted sections have since been restored, and the Library of Congress has stated it was due to a “coding error”.
Read More
Recently, several sections of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution were found to be missing from the official U.S. government website, as discovered by internet users and confirmed by TechCrunch. The Wayback Machine indicates these changes occurred within the last month, with Section 8 partially removed and Sections 9 and 10 entirely deleted. These missing sections detail the powers of Congress, limitations on state authority, and protections for citizens, including those related to habeas corpus. According to the Library of Congress, the omissions are due to a “coding error” and will be rectified soon; however, the White House has declined to comment further.
Read More
The official congressional website, congress.gov, has removed Sections 9 and 10 of Article I from its “Constitution Annotated” resource, raising concerns about the integrity of the document. Section 9, which includes the right to habeas corpus, has been deleted, along with other constitutional protections. This act mirrors former President Trump’s past actions, where he edited out parts of the Constitution that didn’t align with his views, showcasing an assault on the rule of law. This act is a bold step, laying the groundwork for misinformation and making it easier to disregard fundamental rights, despite the law itself remaining unchanged.
Read More
The Department of Justice has launched an unusual lawsuit against the entire U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, citing the court’s order to temporarily pause deportations for individual migrant habeas petitions. The DOJ argues this order overreaches judicial authority and undermines the executive branch’s immigration enforcement priorities. This action is a response to a case that began in May and followed the deportation of a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which the DOJ has called an “administrative error.” The case, which is being defended by noted conservative lawyer Paul Clement, has been moved out of Maryland and is likely to be appealed to higher courts.
Read More
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to return hundreds of Venezuelan nationals deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison. The judge ruled that the deportations, conducted under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act without individual judicial review, violated due process rights. While the Supreme Court vacated a prior injunction halting the deportations, it affirmed the right to individual habeas corpus petitions. The judge deemed the situation “Kafkaesque,” citing evidence suggesting many detainees lacked gang ties and were imprisoned based on flimsy accusations. The ruling mandates the return of the Venezuelans to the U.S. to challenge their deportations.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker