Was Trump planning to suspend habeas corpus? Inside a leaked memo targeting key constitutional protections of individual liberty | Today’s news

Some Trump administration officials, led by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, explored suspending the constitutional right of habeas corpus last year, according to The New York Times.

Last spring, White House staff secretary Will Scharf, a conservative lawyer, wrote a confidential memo expressing concern about a proposal being considered by Stephen Miller, a key architect of US President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda, The New York Times reported.

Read also | Trump claims Iran is behind drone attacks on Indian ships

The message, dated April 29, 2025 and marked “confidential,” had the subject line: “WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.”

It warned against circumventing established legal protections. Habeas corpus, a century-old right enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution, allows individuals to challenge their detention before a judge and requires the government to justify why a person is being detained.

What was in the note?

According to The New York Times, the proposal to suspend habeas corpus — one of the Constitution’s strongest protections of individual liberty — was in line with ideas long favored by Stephen Miller, who has sought ways to pass judicial review in deportation cases. President Trump was reportedly interested in the idea and asked advisers about President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas rights during the Civil War, the NYT reported.

Miller also ordered the Justice Department to study the issue. As internal debate intensified in an administration not known for encouraging dissent, White House Secretary Will Scharf formally documented his concerns in writing, reflecting growing concern among some aides that the proposal was being seriously considered.

Read also | American civil rights leader and Baptist Reverend Jesse Jackson has died at the age of 84

“The history of habeas corpus goes back to the very dawn of English common law,” he noted in his brief to Wiles.

“The denial of habeas corpus rights was a key grievance underlying the American Revolution, and the right to petition federal courts for habeas review dates back to the beginning of the Republic,” Miller wrote, according to the NYT report.

Scharf wrote that throughout U.S. history, all three branches of government have been reluctant to interfere with habeas corpus, “doing so only in the most dire of circumstances and usually with respect to very limited categories of individuals.”

Here is what the US Constitution says

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless the public safety so requires in cases of insurrection or invasion.”

The limitations on habeas corpus contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)16 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) provided an opportunity for further analysis of the scope of the Suspension Clause. Courts have generally held that AEDPA’s limits on repeated habeas petitions by state prisoners are part of a long-standing effort to prevent abuse of the legal process and therefore do not constitute a suspension of habeas corpus under the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.

Scharf argued against the use of the Sedition Act

In a separate report in October, Will Scharf argued against the use of the Insurrection Act, writing that it “serves as an exception to the traditional blanket ban on domestic use of the military.”

He noted that the law was last used during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles at the request of the California governor and warned that using it against immigration protesters would be unprecedented, the NYT reported.

Read also | Trump’s approval rating has stalled at an all-time low amid the Iran war

Following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minnesota in January 2026, administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Stephen Miller, reportedly revisited the idea of ​​using the Sedition Act. However, the measure was ultimately not used and the administration also did not proceed with the suspension of habeas corpus.

Suspension of Habeas Corpus would mean?

In his memo, Scharf warned that suspending habeas corpus without congressional approval would be highly likely to be deemed illegal and could trigger a major legal battle that would distract from the administration’s broader agenda, the NYT reported.

A day after Scharf presented the report to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, President Donald Trump publicly indicated for the first time that he was considering such drastic action.

During a cabinet meeting, Trump suggested there was a way around judicial intervention, saying, “There is one way that three very respected presidents have used.

His remarks came in the context of the case of Kilmar Armando Abrega Garcia, a Salvadoran national who lived in Maryland and was mistakenly deported to CECOT, a maximum-security prison in El Salvador known for housing suspected gang members and terrorism-related detainees.

“But we hope we don’t have to go down that road,” Trump added, the NYT reported.

After CNN reported that Trump’s cabinet remarks were about a possible suspension of habeas corpus and that he was personally involved in the discussions, Stephen Miller answered questions from reporters outside the West Wing.

“The Constitution clearly states, and this is of course the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended during an invasion,” Miller said.

“So it’s an option we’re actively considering.”

Historical references to the suspension of habeas corpus

During the early years of the American Civil War, former President Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus, but faced considerable opposition. He later sought and received congressional approval for this move. In subsequent years, three additional suspensions of habeas corpus were made with varying degrees of express congressional approval.

When suspension works, what is suspended?

“In Ex parte Milligan, the Court held that an injunction is not a stay, but only a privilege, so that the injunction will issue and the issuing court, upon its return, will determine whether the petitioner may proceed, thereby turning to the constitutionality of the stay and whether the petitioner meets the conditions of the stay,” says the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s what Trump said

When Trump was later asked about the news, he appeared to acknowledge that suspending habeas corpus had been discussed, but indicated that the idea was not being seriously pursued at the time.

“If you do it, it’s important,” Trump said. Referring to Kilmar, Armando Abrego Garcia added: “You wouldn’t do that for that particular one.”