dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

TYEB

If habeas corpus is suspended, the government, particularly the executive branch, can detain individuals without legal justification or judicial review. This allows for indefinite detention without the need to present the person before a court or receive a hearing to determine the legality of the detention.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Suspension Clause:

The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it".

Limited Authority:

While the Suspension Clause outlines exceptions, it doesn't specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend it. Most agree that only Congress can suspend it.

Impact of Suspension:

When suspended, the executive branch can detain individuals indefinitely without judicial oversight.

Historical Examples:

Habeas corpus has been suspended in times of national crisis, such as the Civil War, when President Lincoln suspended it on his own motion. It was also suspended in South Carolina and the Philippines in specific circumstances.

Checks and Balances:

Suspension of habeas corpus can undermine the principle of checks and balances by limiting the judiciary's ability to review executive actions and protect individual liberties.

Recent Concerns:

There have been recent concerns about the potential suspension of habeas corpus, particularly in relation to immigration and national security.

Not a Guarantee of Release:

Even with habeas corpus, there's no guarantee of release. The courts can still uphold the detention if it's deemed lawful.

Retroactivity:

New rules of constitutional interpretation announced after a defendant's conviction cannot be retroactively applied in habeas corpus cases, with limited exceptions.

A little refresher course/point, kek!

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday dealt a blow against the Trump administration's attempt to send Venezuelans it says are gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, saying the detainees must have a proper chance to raise legal objections.

The 7-2 decision, which grants a request from a group of Venezuelans, clarified an unusual order issued by the justices in the early hours of April 19 that hit pause on any government plans to deport people held in northern Texas.

The justices in the latest unsigned decision faulted the administration for giving the detainees only 24 hours to launch legal challenges.

"Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the ruling said.

But the court concluded that the justices themselves, "far removed from the circumstances on the ground," are not best placed to determine exactly what process should be followed.

Therefore, the court sent the case back to an appeals court for further proceedings to determine what due process the detainees should receive.

The litigation hinges on the Trump administration’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th-century wartime law, to deport Venezuelans who officials allege are members of a gang called Tren de Aragua.

Supreme Court revives excessive force claim over deadly Houston police shooting

In the ruling, the court did not weigh in on the weighty underlying question of whether the Trump administration can deport people under the Alien Enemies Act.

"To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18," the court ruling said.

Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented. Alito wrote that there were no grounds for the court to get involved at such an early stage of the litigation in Texas toward an airport but then turned around, put the entire case on hold while the justices figured out what next steps to take.

The Supreme Court had, in an April 7 decision, made it clear that any people the government wants to deport under the Alien Enemies Act need to be given the chance to challenge the decision via habeas corpus petitions.

There are several Alien Enemies Act cases being litigated around the country. They raise different issues from the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government mistakenly deported to El Salvador, sparking another debate about due process rights.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-administration-venezuelans-alien-enemies-act-rcna202094