SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
habeas corpus
'That's Incorrect': Kristi Noem Fails Junior High Civics Test on Habeas Corpus During Senate Hearing
"The level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's leadership team "is mindblowing," said one critic of the homeland security secretary.
May 20, 2025
Fueling further alarm over the Trump administration's lurch toward authoritarianism, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not accurately describe the principle of habeas corpus when asked a question that may appear on a junior high school student's civics exam during a Tuesday morning Senate hearing.
"So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?" Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) asked during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing about the fiscal year 2026 budget request.
"Well," Noem responded, "habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to—"
At that point, Hassan cut her off, saying: "Let me stop you... That's incorrect... Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people."
"If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason," Hassan continued. "Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the 'Live Free or Die' state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans."
"So, Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?" the senator asked.
The secretary replied: "Yeah, I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not. Let us be clear, though, that this president—"
Hassan interjected again, pointing out that "it has never been done without approval of Congress," and even former President Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval for his suspension during the U.S. Civil War.
HASSAN: What is habeas corpus? NOEM: Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country HASSAN: That's incorrect
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) May 20, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Lawyers, journalists, and other critics described Noem's remarks as "highly concerning," "embarrassing," and "jaw-dropping."
"This is extraordinary," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The secretary of Homeland Security doesn't know what the right of habeas corpus is (the ancient right to go to court to challenge government detention) and offers an incoherent definition which suggests she thinks it's a presidential power to deport people?"
Independent journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang declared that "the level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's Cabinet picks "is mindblowing."
Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body." As Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) explains: "In the U.S. system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful."
The U.S. Constitution states that "the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
LII notes that "only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the executive. The executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." Since the late 1700s, Congress has passed various related laws.
Later in Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) asked Noem, "Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?"
Noem said: "President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with a retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current-day president."
"This president has never said that he's going to do this," Noem continued. "He's never communicated to me or his administration that they're going to consider suspending habeas corpus, but I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it."
KIM: Do you know what section of the Constitution the suspension clause of habeas corpus is in? NOEM: I do not. Nope. KIM: Do you know which article is it in? NOEM: I do not, sir.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) May 20, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Trump's second administration has framed unauthorized immigration as "the invasion at the southern border."
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told reporters earlier this month that the "the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion, so it's an option we're actively looking at" as part of the Trump administration's pursuit of mass deportations.
Miller suggested the possible suspension of habeas corpus—or attempt at it—depends on what courts do. The Trump administration has targeted multiple legal immigrants who have been critical of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip for deportation. Some of them have recently been freed from detention by federal judges in response to their legal teams filing habeas corpus petitions.
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, but it's not clear all GOP members would support a suspension.
"I was a conservative Republican long before Donald Trump became a Republican, joined the Reform Party, became a Democrat, became a Republican again, became an Independent, and finally returned to the Republican Party," David Chung, an editorial fellow at Iowa's The Gazette, wrote Sunday. "But after reading this column, I'm sure some of my Republican friends will accuse me of being a RINO—a Republican in Name Only."
Chung highlighted that after Miller's remarks, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing last Wednesday, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) asked Noem if the current state of illegal immigration into the United States met the "invasion" requirements for a suspension. The secretary said, "I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does."
Recalling the case of Mollie Tibbets, a University of Iowa student murdered by an undocumented man, Chung wrote that "I want to see violent, criminal aliens (legal or illegal) imprisoned, deported, or both, just as much as the next Republican. But I believe that our Constitution and laws are robust enough to accomplish this without trampling on fundamental rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Donald Trump’s Legal Framework Mirrors the Historical Architectures of Genocide
The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable in the administration’s deportation efforts.
May 16, 2025
I have taught AP U.S. history for years, as well as Government and World History courses. I have written an original curriculum for Honors Economics. I coached successful Public Forum and Policy debate teams for five years. In addition to my professional experience, I am a close reader of both historical scholarship and current events. The conclusions that follow are drawn from a systematic comparison of this year’s immigration and due process developments with established patterns in the historical record.
The federal government is executing a coordinated legal and administrative campaign aimed at the identification, arrest, and removal of millions of undocumented immigrants. These efforts rely on expanded authority for military and federal agencies, the criminalization of municipal noncooperation, and the systematic dismantling of legal protections previously afforded to vulnerable populations. Though presented as standard immigration enforcement, the structure and language of these measures reflect a state-directed attempt to displace a racially and ethnically defined group. The legal apparatus includes provisions for indefinite detention, the arrest of elected officials, and the use of private contractors to operate beyond traditional channels of accountability.
These policies are not theoretical. They are codified in executive orders, agency directives, and prosecutorial actions. The stated goal exceeds the undocumented population, and enforcement does not rely on individualized findings of legal status. It is categorical. The administration describes its targets as “invaders” and “vermin” and frames sanctuary jurisdictions as criminal conspiracies. These terms do not function as rhetoric. They define policy. Laws criminalizing refusal to comply with deportation efforts are designed to eliminate legal and institutional resistance.
The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
What follows is a chronology of recent actions taken or proposed during the second Trump administration, aligned with legal precedents from early Nazi Germany. These are not metaphors. Each section pairs language from contemporary United States policy with that of the 1930s German state, using identical structure and phrasing where historically appropriate. The purpose is to allow for clear legal comparison of governance models used to execute racialized mass removal.
In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14159 titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The order suspended habeas corpus protections for undocumented immigrants, expanded federal authority over sanctuary jurisdictions, and authorized indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police under 287(g) agreements.
On February 28, 1933, Adolf Hitler enacted the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State. The decree suspended habeas corpus, granted the central government power over state authorities, and permitted indefinite detention and mass deputization of local police to suppress declared enemies of the state.
In April 2025, the Trump administration began removing civil servants based on prior involvement in diversity or civil rights programs. A directive issued April 2 targeted officials for dismissal or reassignment solely for ideological nonconformity.
On April 7, 1933, Hitler’s regime enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. This measure removed Jews and political opponents from public office based on ancestry or beliefs and mandated reassignment or termination for ideological deviation.
In May 2025, the Department of Justice ordered the identification of state and local officials who refused to assist with federal immigration enforcement. These officials were targeted for prosecution under statutes related to obstruction and harboring.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime began detaining opposition party members and regional officials who resisted centralized directives. Local leaders were prosecuted or removed for obstructing enforcement of national laws.
In February 2025, the Trump administration revoked federal support for PBS and NPR and initiated reviews of media funding for ideological violations. The stated aim was to eliminate sources of disinformation and enforce loyalty to national priorities.
In March 1933, the Nazi government enacted the Editors Law, revoked press credentials from noncompliant outlets, and placed all broadcast content under state control. The purpose was to remove disloyal voices and ensure total ideological conformity.
In May 2025, a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly aiding an undocumented immigrant. Federal officials warned that similar acts of judicial noncooperation could be prosecuted as subversion.
In July 1933, the Nazi regime dismissed judges deemed politically unreliable and established special courts. Judges who issued rulings contrary to regime policy were disciplined or removed.
In April 2025, Trump officials proposed turning military bases into detention centers for families without legal review. These facilities would be operated by private contractors under emergency protocols.
In June 1933, Nazi authorities converted military and industrial sites into concentration camps. The camps detained prisoners without court oversight and were run by SS forces under emergency powers.
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was considering the arrest of Democratic members of Congress who protested at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. They were accused of obstructing federal officers and interfering with detention protocols.
In March 1933, the Nazi regime arrested parliamentary members and accused them of obstructing national authority. Resistance to regime policy was criminalized as a threat to public order.
Trump has constantly proposed legislation to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented parents. His proposals aim to redefine legal membership in the national community.
In 1935, the Nazi regime enacted the Reich Citizenship Law. The law stripped Jews of citizenship and redefined the legal criteria for national belonging.
The current phase of the Trump administration’s immigration policy reflects an early stage rather than a peak of repression. The legal and operational structure for targeted mass removal is being assembled through executive orders, bureaucratic purges, and prosecutorial test cases that redefine the limits of federal authority.
The scale of proposed removals exceeds historical precedent but has not yet reached full execution. Institutional resistance is inconsistent but has not been eliminated. Local and state officials retain procedural leverage if they choose to apply it. The most effective deterrent to escalation remains noncompliance at every level of implementation.
The policy direction is explicit. Continued repression is not a possibility but a stated intention. The presence of Latino Americans in federal agencies and military institutions has not prevented policy targeting based on national origin or perceived foreignness. Participation does not provide exemption from removal. The structural conditions that have historically preceded ethnic cleansing are now observable. The determining factor will be whether enough people act before enforcement becomes normalized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dem Demands Resignation of DHS Chief Kristi Noem for 'Despicable Actions'
"We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "Trump's will is not the guiding doctrine of the nation, and our country is not a playground for his and your twisted authoritarian fantasies."
May 14, 2025
U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez has led calls for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign for weeks, condemning her prominent role in overseeing the Trump administration's virulently anti-immigrant agenda—but on Wednesday she took a rare in-person opportunity to once again call on the far-right Republican to step down.
"For weeks and weeks we've been waiting for Secretary Noem to come before our committee," said Ramirez (D-Ill.) in a video she posted online ahead of the House Homeland Security Committee hearing. "I'm not going to sit there and just let her lie under oath about all the horrifying things that she's doing... I say enough is enough, and in just a few minutes, I'm going to say that to her face, because it's about damn time that person, that secretary, resigns."
Ramirez began her remarks in the hearing by asking Noem a rapid-fire set of questions, clarifying whether the secretary believes the judicial and legislative branches of government are co-equal branches—facts that have been disregarded by the Trump administration as it has flouted a federal judge's order to stop expelling Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, moved to shutter federal agencies created by Congress, and canceled funding appropriated by Congress.
Despite Noem's claim in the hearing that she and the administration respect bedrock laws meant to maintain checks and balances in the federal government, Ramirez noted in the hearing that Noem has "repeatedly disregarded the law" since being confirmed as homeland security secretary.
As Ramirez said:
You closed offices established in law, including the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
You canceled contracts for programs authorized in law, including shelter and services programs, and citizenship and integration grants.
You obstructed and roughed up members of this committee as they conducted congressional oversight.
You redirected funds to terrorize our communities, create taxpayer-funded political propaganda campaigns, and hold sick, disrespectful press conferences in my state, where let me be clear, you are not welcome.
You corruptly used emergency authority to avoid procurement to make [President Donald] Trump's private prison donors richer by directing $45 billion to them for expanded [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention centers.
You defunded work to address real threats to the homeland, while you pursue the college newspaper editor, labor leaders, and a Harvard scientist who failed to declare frog embryos at the airport.
Ramirez said she found it "laughable" when Noem affirmed that she swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution when she took her oath of office.
"You don't behave like someone who takes that oath seriously," said Ramirez. "We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. Trump's will is not the guiding doctrine of the nation, and our country is not a playground for his and your twisted authoritarian fantasies."
"YOU have betrayed the sacred fundamentals of your oath; YOU are not fit to hold the office, and I, again—to your face—demand your resignation and place that request on the record," Ramirez concluded.
The congresswoman also sent a letter to Noem reiterating the demand for her resignation and condemning Department of Homeland Security officials for unlawfully raiding homes and expelling "immigrants, legal residents, and citizens alike," including a number of children.
She also reiterated Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-Conn.) concern, expressed at a hearing last week, that Noem's department is "out of control" and is rapidly "running out of money to execute the horrors we are witnessing."
Noem is also "running out of excuses for [her] despicable actions," Ramirez wrote.
Podcast host Jim Stewartson said that with Ramirez's questioning, she addressed "the Trump regime in its full criminal, anti-democratic, illiberal horror."
"Delia Ramirez finally cuts through the bullshit and lays it all on the table," he said.
At Wednesday's hearing, Noem suggested that under the U.S. Constitution, Trump has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an idea that's been floated by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
Rights groups have filed numerous habeas corpus petitions to challenge the detentions of foreign students including Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Badar Khan Suri; Öztürk and Suri have been released from detention in recent days.
The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus, under which people have the right to challenge their detention, only "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The administration has pushed the idea that the U.S. is facing an "invasion" by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, and has used that claim to expel hundreds of migrants to El Salvador.
"No government has the right to arbitrarily take your freedom away," said Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker after Miller discussed the idea Tuesday. "Preserving habeas corpus is not optional. It's a fundamental concept of justice that people have fought and died for."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular