White House Advisor Stephen Miller Reveals Plans to Suspend Due Process for Migrants

Stephen Miller, a prominent advisor to former President Donald Trump, spoke to reporters recently about the administration’s consideration of ending due process protections for unauthorized immigrants in the United States. He pointed out that the Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during times of invasion, suggesting that this is an option they are exploring. Miller also expressed skepticism about the courts’ role in immigration matters, stating that many judges oppose the executive branch and are interfering with the legislative branch as well.

He argued that the eventual decisions made by President Trump will be influenced by how courts handle immigration cases. Trump himself has expressed frustration that constitutional protections hinder his mass deportation efforts, highlighting that the judicial system is slowing down the removal of individuals he believes should not be in the country. In an interview, Trump acknowledged the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process but dismissed its implications, suggesting that adhering to these regulations would create an overwhelming number of trials for those the administration aims to deport, many of whom include serious offenders.

When asked if he must uphold the Constitution, Trump indicated uncertainty, noting reliance on his team’s legal expertise. The Constitution permits the suspension of due process under specific circumstances, including rebellion or invasion. Trump’s framing of the situation as an invasion was evident when he cited the Alien Enemies Act in regards to criminal gangs.

However, federal judges have countered that such activities do not equate to an invasion. While the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on this invasion assertion, it reaffirmed the necessity of due process for those facing removal. Historically, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended during significant crises, such as the Civil War and World War II, highlighting the gravity of such an action in American legal precedent.