Suspending Habeas Corpus

[Anonymous]

There’s one foolproof verification that the Supreme Court is corrupt is if they allowed the suspension of Habeas Corpus. I can’t imagine.

One of the most important parts of the country’s democratic constitution is freedom from being pulled out of your bed and put in a dungeon with the government not admitting to taking the person or where he is.

If a country doesn’t have a version of Habeas Corpus they aren’t a democracy. And anyone who believes that these people would stop at illegal immigrants then they are ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Habeas corpus has only been suspended in extreme circumstances, usually involving war or armed insurrection:
1814 (Louisiana): Suspended by military commander Andrew Jackson to protect New Orleans from British invasion.

1861–1863 (Civil War): Suspended by President Abraham Lincoln to detain suspected Confederate sympathizers and draft resisters.

1905 (Philippines): Suspended by President Theodore Roosevelt during an insurrection in two provinces.

1941 (Hawaii): Suspended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Basically if we are allowed to be invaded by a foreign military power or a domestic uprising, the POTUS will suspend.

It's probably easier to look the other way while a foreign power does the dirty work.

[Anonymous]

A number of people at the highest levels of this administration wanted to suspend habeas corpus to carry out the mass deportations of their dreams last year.

s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Habeas corpus has only been suspended in extreme circumstances, usually involving war or armed insurrection:
1814 (Louisiana): Suspended by military commander Andrew Jackson to protect New Orleans from British invasion.

1861–1863 (Civil War): Suspended by President Abraham Lincoln to detain suspected Confederate sympathizers and draft resisters.

1905 (Philippines): Suspended by President Theodore Roosevelt during an insurrection in two provinces.

1941 (Hawaii): Suspended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Basically if we are allowed to be invaded by a foreign military power or a domestic uprising, the POTUS will suspend.

It's probably easier to look the other way while a foreign power does the dirty work.

[Anonymous]

It's frightening that we're even having this discussion. We're becoming America the Vulnerable. Look what's happening, look at all that's happened. And it's not being stopped. What's this place going to look like in two more years? America is the abused spouse in a horrific, toxic relationship with nowhere to run to. He's cut access to friends and family (they don't even know how to get through to us anymore). Our finances are shot, he's cost us jobs, he's stolen the last few dollars out of our wallets. A large contingent of the neighborhood (MAGA) doesn't believe a word we say and insists he's a God's gift and we are ungrateful better learn to be more appreciative of his hard work and stop betraying the wonderful man the see all over town, oh, and at church, too! The cops (Congress) are useless and always stop short of arresting the abuser, the best we've gotten out of filing charges is a restraining order.

And now, they're after habeus corpus. One of the most important rules in place that separates us from truly rogue nations is being challenged. This isn't just about the undocumented migrants, folks...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Habeas corpus has only been suspended in extreme circumstances, usually involving war or armed insurrection:
1814 (Louisiana): Suspended by military commander Andrew Jackson to protect New Orleans from British invasion.

1861–1863 (Civil War): Suspended by President Abraham Lincoln to detain suspected Confederate sympathizers and draft resisters.

1905 (Philippines): Suspended by President Theodore Roosevelt during an insurrection in two provinces.

1941 (Hawaii): Suspended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Basically if we are allowed to be invaded by a foreign military power or a domestic uprising, the POTUS will suspend.

It's probably easier to look the other way while a foreign power does the dirty work.

Suspending Habeas Corpus can only be approved by Congress. The ones listed above were reasonable given the wars.

Creepy Stephen Miller is pushing Habeas Corpus again because he claims we are being invaded by immigrants and the ICE protesters are insurrectionists (not to be confused with J6 protesters).

We should be very concerned if this becomes a reality. No one would be safe from being whisked off the street and jailed with zero rights. Trump has easily broken every rule in the book and nothing happens.

I always think, oh big talker, he can’t do that! But he does. If it happens one more nail in democracies coffin.

[Anonymous]

There was an article in the NYT yesterday. Last spring Miller pushed the idea of suspending Habeas Corpus but it was quashed by attorney Will Scharf , uber conservative White House lawyer. Scharf sent a memo, and stamped “confidential,” was a warning against end-running the rule of law. Miller thought they

The Times wrote …

“ Yet just as the idea of suspending habeas corpus was set aside but never fully abandoned by some inside the White House, the Insurrection Act, at least in the eyes of its proponents, would remain a loaded weapon in a West Wing eager to test the limits of presidential power.”

One lawyer doing his job halted the attempt at suspending Habeas Corpus for now. Miller is still pushing for the insurrection act.

Miller hasn’t given up. He recommends that Trump simply claim the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Then Trump could speed up deportations, and more important to assert vastly expanded power over a legal system that was getting in his way.

We haven’t seen the last of this.





https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-scharf-habeas-corpus-insurrection-act.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was an article in the NYT yesterday. Last spring Miller pushed the idea of suspending Habeas Corpus but it was quashed by attorney Will Scharf , uber conservative White House lawyer. Scharf sent a memo, and stamped “confidential,” was a warning against end-running the rule of law. Miller thought they

The Times wrote …

“ Yet just as the idea of suspending habeas corpus was set aside but never fully abandoned by some inside the White House, the Insurrection Act, at least in the eyes of its proponents, would remain a loaded weapon in a West Wing eager to test the limits of presidential power.”

One lawyer doing his job halted the attempt at suspending Habeas Corpus for now. Miller is still pushing for the insurrection act.

Miller hasn’t given up. He recommends that Trump simply claim the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Then Trump could speed up deportations, and more important to assert vastly expanded power over a legal system that was getting in his way.

We haven’t seen the last of this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-scharf-habeas-corpus-insurrection-act.html

What I find even more troubling is Vance's role in promoting the notion of invoking the Insurrection Act--because theoretically Vance could become president one day. In this recounted WH discussion, it's VANCE pushing for the IA.

Yet a few days after the Pretti killing, and even as the administration was moving to de-escalate the situation, Mr. Vance walked into Ms. Wiles’s West Wing office shortly after 9 a.m. for the regular senior staff meeting, and took a seat at the end of her long conference table.

Attendance was lighter than usual. Mr. Miller sat to his right, his back to the windows overlooking West Executive Avenue. Mr. Scharf sat at the opposite end of the table. Mr. Warrington, the White House counsel, was beside the vice president. Ms. Wiles took her customary wingback chair near the fireplace. Her deputy, James Blair, took the other.

Mr. Vance got to the point. They needed to invoke the Insurrection Act, swiftly, to crush the unrest in Minnesota. It would be painful in the short term, he said, but the message it would send — that paid agitators could not get away with disrupting ICE operations — would make sure no one tried it again. (There was no evidence that either Mr. Pretti or Ms. Good had been paid activists.)

[Anonymous]

“The internal resistance to suspending habeas corpus was real. Scharf wrote the memos. The White House counsel had doubts. Vance and Miller eventually stood down.

And then in July 2025, ICE implemented the workaround that delivered most of the same outcome without requiring anyone to invoke Lincoln or face a Supreme Court challenge.

Petitions for release from unjust detention up almost 10,000 percent. A Kansas City attorney describing an Iranian refugee - 180 days in detention, childhood abuse survivor - whose healing had been ripped back by the wait. An Atlanta lawyer calling it a banana republic without qualification.

The White House's statement on all of this is that officials weigh many different lawful options with Trump always being the ultimate decider.

The Iranian refugee in Rekha Sharma-Crawford's caseload is the ultimate decider's decision. The 10,000 percent surge is the outcome of the lawful option they chose when the unlawful one proved too legally risky to attempt.

The restraint wasn't mercy. It was tactics.”