The Actual Threat: Attacks on Habeas and Citizenship Rights

Summary

In a recent discussion, Ryan Goodman delves into the disturbing comments made by Steven Miller regarding the potential suspension of habeas corpus and its implications on citizenship rights. Miller's remarks suggest a possible executive overreach by indicating that the President could suspend habeas corpus, a fundamental right that Congress has the authority to suspend. Goodman highlights important legal perspectives, citing Justice Amy Coney Barrett and various federal judges, to emphasize the grave constitutional and civil risks associated with such actions. The conversation also touches upon the Trump administration's approach to birthright citizenship and how these ideas collectively challenge the basic tenets of American democracy.

Highlights

• Steven Miller suggests the President could suspend habeas corpus, sparking controversy. 🚫
• Habeas corpus is a congressional power, as confirmed by legal scholars. 📚
• The Trump administration's stance on birthright citizenship is constitutionally controversial. 🏛️
• Recent rulings showcase federal courts defending constitutional rights against executive overreach. ⚖️
• Understanding 'invasion' as a legal term is crucial to protecting civil liberties. 🛡️

Key Takeaways

• Steven Miller's comments on suspending habeas corpus reflect a misunderstanding of constitutional law. 📜
• Habeas corpus suspension is Congress's power, not the President's. 🏛️
• The Trump administration's executive order challenges established birthright citizenship rights. 👶
• Federal judges are likely to push back against these overreaching measures. ⚖️
• Misinterpretations of 'invasion' pose a significant threat to civil rights. 🚨

Overview

Ryan Goodman unpacks the recent concerning statements by Steven Miller regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. Miller's assertion that the President could unilaterally suspend this fundamental right highlights a critical misunderstanding of constitutional law, which vests this power solely in Congress. Goodman emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal and constitutional framework that protects individual liberties against unauthorized detention.

Moreover, Goodman's discourse extends to the Trump administration's contentious approach to birthright citizenship. By challenging the established constitutional tenet that guarantees citizenship to all born on U.S. soil, the administration raises serious questions about the protection of civil liberties. This issue becomes even more profound when considering other legal boundaries being tested under the guise of national emergency or 'invasion.'

Throughout the discussion, Goodman highlights judicial voices and scholarship in strong opposition to these measures. Federal judges have repeatedly affirmed the nonexistence of any 'invasion' necessitating such draconian measures, showcasing a critical judicial check on executive overreach. This conversation serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution and the necessity for vigilance in the protection of civil rights.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction to Steven Miller's Comments on Habeas Corpus This chapter introduces a discussion on Steven Miller's controversial remarks regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. The speaker aims to provide unique insights that may not be commonly available. A quote from Steven Miller is highlighted, emphasizing the constitutional stance that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended during an invasion. Miller mentions that this option is under active consideration, prompting the speaker to explore this topic further.
• 00:30 - 01:30: Constitutional Authority on Habeas Corpus This chapter discusses the constitutional authority related to Habeas Corpus. It highlights that Habeas Corpus is a fundamental right allowing individuals in the United States to contest unlawful detention. Importantly, the chapter clarifies that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.
• 01:30 - 02:30: Legal Interpretation by Justice Amy Coney Barrett The chapter discusses U.S. President's power to suspend habeas corpus and its constitutional implications. Justice Amy Coney Barrett highlights the extreme nature of such an act, emphasizing that the constitution places this power in Article One, not under the President's purview. The discussion addresses misinformation regarding clarity on this constitutional provision.
• 02:30 - 04:30: Implications of Suspending Habeas Corpus The chapter discusses the implications of suspending habeas corpus, highlighting a perspective from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a scholar on habeas corpus. In a 2014 law review article published in the Cornell Law Review, she states there is a virtual unanimity in legal views regarding constitutional vesting, suggesting her scholarly approach to the topic within the judiciary context, though the complete context of the quote is yet to be explored.
• 04:30 - 06:30: Contextual Analysis by Laura Baron Lopez Laura Baron Lopez explores the distribution of power between Congress and the president regarding the suspension of habeas corpus. The chapter discusses a law review article concerning the extent of authority Congress may delegate to the president. It emphasizes that only Congress can determine if the conditions of rebellion or invasion exist to justify such suspension, underscoring the legislative branch's pivotal role in this crucial decision-making process.
• 06:30 - 09:30: Threat to Birthright Citizenship The chapter titled 'Threat to Birthright Citizenship' touches on the legal boundaries of executive power in the context of suspending habeas corpus. The conversation highlights the widely accepted premise that only Congress holds the power and authority to suspend habeas corpus, and it is not a unilateral power of the President. Specifically, if a President, such as President Trump, were to attempt to suspend habeas corpus on their own, it would constitute a dangerous accumulation of power by the executive branch, which goes beyond a mere overreach but represents a significant concentration of power in the presidency.
• 09:30 - 10:30: Judicial Pushback Against Invasion Claims The chapter discusses the fundamental right of individuals to contest their detention, emphasizing the unlawfulness of the claims made by Steven Müller concerning the suspension of habeas corpus in the absence of an invasion. It questions Müller's perception of 'invaders' and references a point made by Laura Baron Lopez in the discussion.
• 10:30 - 12:00: Positive Outlook and Judicial Awareness This chapter discusses reactions to comments made by Steven Miller on PBS NewsHour, particularly focusing on the timing and implications of these remarks. The commentary follows rulings by judges who have declared the administration's deportation actions illegal. It also mentions a recent case where a student was ordered released by a federal judge following a successful habeas corpus petition. Overall, the discussion seems to reflect on the judicial system's role and the positive outcomes for individuals challenging detention and deportation actions.
• 12:00 - 13:00: Conclusion and Call to Action Chapter Title: Conclusion and Call to Action

The Actual Threat: Attacks on Habeas and Citizenship Rights Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 Hi everyone. I wanted to discuss with you and put you in the know about um Steven Miller's outrageous comments on the suspension of habius and give you information that I think you might not see elsewhere. So let's first just uh start out with Steven Miller in his own words. Well, the constitution is clear and that of course is the supreme law of the land that the privilege of the writ of habius corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that's an option we're actively looking at.
• 00:30 - 01:00 Look, a lot of it depends on whether the court should do the right thing or not. So habius corpus is a fundamental right of all individuals in the United States to be able to contest their unlawful detention. And the first thing that might be important for you to know is that you may have already heard or read that the constitution um vests the ability to suspend habius corpus in Congress, not the president.
• 01:00 - 01:30 So it would be an extreme act for the president of the United States to say that he or she in some other circumstance uh could on their own suspend habius. And that's why um the suspension clause is actually located in article one of the constitution. So when Steven Müller says that the constitution is clear um he's deeply underinformed or trying to misinform you. And uh you don't need
• 01:30 - 02:00 to just believe me. I think it's important to know and here's one of the pieces that you may not have heard before. Uh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett um is a scholar on habius and she uh wrote a article in 2014. I'm just going to quote for you the opening a sentence from the opening of this law article. The lawview article is in the Cornell lawview and I'll put it in the show notes, but she said, quote, "There is virtual unanimity in the view that the Constitution vests
• 02:00 - 02:30 Congress alone with the power to suspend." End quote. And in fact, her law reviewview article is about a separate question, which is like how much of that authority could Congress potentially defer to the president? And she ends up by saying it's the Congress themselves that must determine that the country is under a rebellion or invasion which is require a required condition for the suspension of habius. Uh but the bottom line is that there's an there is
• 02:30 - 03:00 a an accepted uh assumption a premise to all those conversations which is that it is Congress's power and Congress's power and authority and responsibility alone to be able to suspend habius. uh a president should not be able to do so on their own and if the President Trump were to try to do so it would be another aspect of this that would be an extraordinary dangerous um accumulation of power in the president let alone it's not just an accumulation of power but it's over the
• 03:00 - 03:30 right the fundamental right of people to be able to contest their detention. So that's the first thing just to know that there's something uh grotesqually unlawful about what Steven Müller is saying in both dimensions that the president can do this and that they would suspend habius in the country when we're under no invasion or the like. Second is to think about who are the invaders in Steven Miller's mind. And I thought that Laura Baron Lopez put the
• 03:30 - 04:00 context well last night on PBS NewsHour uh which followed right after Steven Miller's comments. So just listen to what she said on that show. That now the timing of Steven Miller's comments is key here because of the fact that it's after a judge judges have repeatedly ruled that the administration's actions regarding deportations uh are unlawful. And it also comes uh after a student just today was ordered released by a federal judge from detention after filing a successful habius petition. So
• 04:00 - 04:30 who is uh Romea Ostark? She is not an undocumented immigrant. Uh she was released on habius on Friday because she was held by the administration even though she is lawfully in the country and a doctoral student at Tufts University. In fact, the judge found it was such an outrageous detention because the only basis that was ever given uh for her detention was a um op-ed that she wrote and no other basis whatsoever.
• 04:30 - 05:00 And the judge said this is a fundamental affront to the First Amendment, but it's also an affront. Imagine if she couldn't even have contested her detention or gotten to a judge. That's what stripping people of habius rights entails. And uh if you don't think that Steven Miller thinks of these individuals as part of the invasion and what's what he considers to be wrong with the country, I think that it actually fits very well as a puzzle piece with the White House, Steven Miller and the uh and President
• 05:00 - 05:30 Trump's uh approach to birthright citizenship. Just think about the executive order. What was so extreme about the executive order is not just stripping um individuals of birthright citizenship which is enshrined in the constitution in its text and has been recognized by the Supreme Court forever. Um but also that their version of the executive order would also strip people of their citizenship if they're born not just to undocumented immigrants but to
• 05:30 - 06:00 people like Miss Usurk. In other words, to people who are in the country lawfully. I'll just read you a provision from the se first section of the birthright citizenship executive order. It says it also applies quote when the person's mother's presence in the United States at the time of said person's birth was lawful but temporary such as um but not limited to visiting the United States under the opaces of the visa waiver program or visiting on a
• 06:00 - 06:30 student work or tourist visa which describes her to a te and it's that idea that even uh children born to those uh individuals in the country lawfully would be stripped of their citizenship rights. So that gives you a sense of it. Also, if the president of the United States is able to suspend habius, that would mean habius for citizens and non-citizens alike, there's no reason to think that it would be restricted um in the minds of the White House. So, this comes just off of the heels of the
• 06:30 - 07:00 arrest and detention of the mayor of Newark. Um I could imagine that the president of the United States, President Trump, uh might say, "Look, we're undergoing an invasion. This is an national emergency. So we cannot afford to give habius rights to individuals and deprive um local officials of their ability to contest uh their detention and get released. Um that's the kind of dangerous slippery slippery slope uh that we're on. Um all that said, I also
• 07:00 - 07:30 want to end on a positive note. I don't think this is a forced positive note. I I really do believe that um Steven Miller's comments are both foolish but also self-defeating. And what I mean by self-defeating is that his words are being listened to by federal judges across the country. I think that it will make them even more reluctant to ever embrace the administration's notion that the country is under an invasion. We've already seen uh judges stepping up to
• 07:30 - 08:00 the plate on this particular issue when it comes to the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, but I think now they can see the dangerous implications. Were they to ever accept that the um or defer to the president's determination that we're in an invasion, the logical implications are things like the suspension of habius and um Danny Schulen and I have a piece at just security. Uh you can Google it by looking for a pirate ver uh uh victory in which we out um we recite
• 08:00 - 08:30 a bunch of the federal court cases in which judges have now said uh this is no such thing as an invasion. This is a bogus invocation of the notion of invasion both under the constitution or under the 1789 sorry 1798 uh alien enemies act. One of the judges, for example, in the DC circuit, uh, Judge Henderson, who, uh, was appointed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when she was elevated to the circuit, uh, she
• 08:30 - 09:00 said in an opinion, I want to quote her because she referred to the, um, one of the few arguments that the, uh, Department of Justice mustered. So she said here we go uh quoting a dictionary over 200 years post enactment meaning post enactment of the constitution the government claims that the term invasion as used in the alien enemies act encompasses the arrival somewhere of people or things who are not wanted here
• 09:00 - 09:30 the text and its original meaning say otherwise the theme that rings true is that an invasion is a milit military affair, not one of migration." End quote. Uh agreeing with her, um our other judges, um Judge Sweeney in Colorado on an alien enemies act also said this is not an invasion. Judge Helerstein in New York also said this is not an invasion. Uh recently this week, um Judge Chief Judge Booseberg of the DC
• 09:30 - 10:00 uh district court said to the DOJ attorneys, "Isn't it true that and then he just started reciting all of these other federal court um judges that have um come out saying this is not a proper invocation of the Alien Enemies Act because it's not an invasion?" And isn't that where things stand? Essentially, is what he said to the DOJ attorney. And the DOJ attorney agreed. Um was trying to wrigle out a bunch of other things, but on that particular one agreed. Um lastly, I just want to recommend to you a piece that we also published at Just Security. It's a precient piece because
• 10:00 - 10:30 it was published in January of 2025 um by Ilia Sman, who is a professor at the Antinine Scalia Law School at George Mason University. I'll also put this one in the show notes as well. And he talks about the dangerous implications of accepting the not just rhetoric, but legal framework of an invasion when it comes to migration. and he goes through an originalist uh understanding of the
• 10:30 - 11:00 constitution and explains why that's not that is not what invasion means. It's his kind of scholarship that's being picked up by these federal judges. And um uh Ilia is also identifying the slippery slope because back in January he already said look if you look at these executive orders like the executive order declaring an invasion and things like that here's where it could lead and one of the implications he actually says is it could lead to the suspension of habius. Um I'll just mention another thing he me he says as
• 11:00 - 11:30 well. He says, "Look, if you take the term invasion, the Constitution also says that the individual states like Texas could actually take the country to war. They could engage in war under the Constitution if they face an invasion." He says that's not an issue for the next four years, probably under the Trump administration, because Texas is in lock step with the White House. But in future years, why wouldn't the Texas government and attorney general be able to say, "Oh, we're actually going to use force inside Mexico if we accept the term of
• 11:30 - 12:00 invasion." So, that's the kind of dangerous slippery slope. And in some ways, it's a good thing that um Steven Miller has revealed to us uh where things stand and the dangerous precipice that we're on because it's uh stiffens the back, I think, of federal judges and it should also stiffen the back of members of Congress not to accept this terminology or to give it any legitimacy. So, thank you so much for listening and tuning in to my new YouTube channel. If you're new here, uh please feel free to like, subscribe, and
• 12:00 - 12:30 follow along. Um and I also uh look forward to comments from you all in which I hope to engage you there as well. So, thank you all for tuning in. Until uh next time.