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
us constitution
'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
As Supreme Court Hears Birthright Citizenship Case, Trump Ripped for Attack on Core Constitutional Right
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," one campaigner warned.
May 15, 2025
As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.
"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.
"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."
Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."
"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."
According toPolitico:
Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.
Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.
The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.
The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.
As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."
If the President is arguing to strip federal judges of the power to stop him from flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment citizenship rights of Americans - literally rendering some children stateless persons - that context is germane to argument about the legitimate use of the federal court’s power.
[image or embed]
— Sherrilyn Ifill (@sifill.bsky.social) May 15, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.
"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.
"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."
Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Halts Trump and Musk's Illegal Overhaul of US Government
The second Trump administration "has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," the coalition behind the lawsuit said, welcoming the temporary restraining order.
May 10, 2025
A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked what at coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits argued was "the unconstitutional dismantling of the federal government by the president of the United States on a scale unprecedented in this country’s history and in clear excess of his authority."
Since returning to office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump—aided by his so-callled Department of Government Efficiency and its de facto leader, billionaire Elon Musk—has worked to quickly overhaul the bureaucracy, even though "the president does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action," as the coalition's complaint notes.
District Judge Susan Illston agreed with the groups and governments, which include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Alliance for Retired Americans, Main Street Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, the city and county of San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and more.
"The president has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," wrote Illston in a 42-page decision. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the president from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office."
"Indeed, the court holds the president likely must request congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime," said the judge, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton.
Illston added that "a temporary restraining order is, by definition, temporary. The court will not consider defendants' request for a stay of execution of the temporary restraining order, as doing so would render the exercise pointless. The court must promptly proceed to consideration of a preliminary injunction."
Welcoming the development in a late Friday statement, the plaintiff coalition said that "the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation."
"Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government—laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that," the coalition added. "We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds."
The "largest and most significant challenge to Trump's authority to remake the government without congressional approval," as the coalition called it, was filed April 28 by the organizations' legal team: Democracy Forward, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Protect Democracy, Public Rights Project, and State Democracy Defenders Fund.
Illston's decision came just hours after an emergency hearing, during which coalition attorney Danielle Leonard "said the Trump administration's vision was to fundamentally degrade the services that Congress funds agencies to carry out, raising a profound separation of powers conflict," according toThe New York Times.
As the newspaper detailed:
"There's a presumption of regularity that used to exist with respect to the government's actions that I think they need to re-earn," she said.
Ms. Leonard said the Trump administration has never been able to point to any specific authority through which the president could seize that power from Congress. And she said that the government has consistently offered competing and contradictory explanations of why Mr. Trump can authorize the massive restructuring without Congress.
"It's an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail," she said.
Signaling a desire to keep moving through the process swiftly, Illston gave the plaintiff coalition until next Wednesday to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, and the federal defendants—Trump along with various federal agencies and their leaders—until the following Monday to respond, with a limit of 25 pages for both.
Even if the coalition's lawsuit ultimately succeeds, Republicans have a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress, meaning Trump could potentially work with lawmakers to pursue a similar gutting of the federal government before the midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular