In a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sparked controversy after mischaracterising the constitutional principle of habeas corpus. Her comments prompted an immediate correction from Senator Maggie Hassan and ignited a flurry of online criticism.
When asked by Senator Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire, to define habeas corpus, Noem responded, “Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, to suspend their right to...” before being cut off.
Senator Hassan firmly replied, “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. It is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”
Noem then rephrased her answer, stating, “I support habeas corpus.” But she added, “I also recognise that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.”
This exchange came amid rising concerns that the Trump administration may attempt to suspend the centuries-old legal safeguard as part of its aggressive immigration enforcement strategy.
Suspension talk: Trump aide fuels debate
The discussion follows earlier remarks by Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, who on 9 May told reporters the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus. He said, “The Constitution is clear… the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion… So that’s an option we’re actively looking at.”
Miller further suggested that courts might not even have jurisdiction, stating, “Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts… of jurisdiction over immigration cases.”
The Trump administration has argued that the U.S. is facing an “invasion” of illegal migrants, invoking language typically associated with war or national emergency. The aim is to expedite deportations without lengthy legal proceedings. However, this framing has been widely challenged in courts and the press.
What is 'Habeas corpus'?
Habeas corpus—Latin for “you have the body”—is a legal doctrine that dates back to English common law and was codified in the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the government must justify detaining any person before a neutral judge. The Constitution only allows its suspension “when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”
Historically, suspension has occurred just four times. President Abraham Lincoln first suspended it during the Civil War to detain Confederate sympathisers, a move initially rebuked by the Supreme Court’s then-Chief Justice Roger Taney. Congress later granted Lincoln retroactive approval. It was suspended again under President Ulysses S. Grant to combat Ku Klux Klan violence, in the Philippines in 1905, and in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941.
Legal scholars, including now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett, have noted that although the Constitution does not specify which branch may suspend habeas corpus, most agree that only Congress holds that power.
Following the gaffe, Kristi Noem has come under intense scrutiny on social media after a video of her misdefining the legal principle of habeas corpus during a Senate hearing went viral.
The moment was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by political commentator Brian Krassenstein. “We are living in the dumbest of times,” Krassenstein wrote, summing up what many users echoed in the comments.
The backlash was swift and biting.
One user responded, “I was laughing so hard! That’s why she plays dress-up, because she can’t do anything else.” Another added, “Dangerously dumb.” Comments ranged from blunt jabs—“She’s as dumb as a bag of rocks”—to more pointed speculation: “She’s playing dumb. Has to be.” Another said plainly, “The head of the department is freaking CLUELESS! My God!”
The social media storm erupted after Noem told Senator Maggie Hassan during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing that habeas corpus was “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.” Hassan, a Democrat and former attorney, immediately corrected her: “Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.”
Judiciary pushback likely
John Blume, professor at Cornell Law School, said Noem’s remarks reflect either “a fundamental misunderstanding” or deliberate misinformation. “She was giving an answer she knew was wrong to appease the president,” he told reporters.
Blume also cast doubt on the administration’s ability to suspend habeas corpus, even under claims of invasion. “That position would be very unlikely to fly with the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added.
This is not the administration’s first brush with sweeping legal authority. Trump previously cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members. Federal courts across states including New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania blocked the move, citing insufficient evidence of a true national threat.
Unlike previous administrations, even during times of crisis, President Trump’s team appears more willing to stretch executive power. After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush chose not to suspend habeas corpus but instead detained terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court later ruled in 2008 that detainees had the right to challenge their detention under habeas corpus.
Senator Hassan pressed Noem further on whether she would follow a hypothetical court ruling overturning a presidential suspension of habeas corpus. Noem responded, “I’m following all court orders… as is the president.” To which Hassan responded bluntly, “That is obviously not true for anybody who reads the news.”
A divided government, a divided opinion
Any attempt to suspend habeas corpus now would face steep hurdles. With only narrow Republican majorities in Congress, gaining legislative support would be difficult. Courts, too, remain a bulwark against executive overreach, as seen in repeated rulings that have blocked Trump-era immigration measures.
Still, the administration's interest in circumventing traditional legal pathways to speed up deportations signals a concerning shift.
At its core, the clash over habeas corpus is more than a political spat—it’s a test of the balance between national security and civil liberties. And for many, the answer should never be ambiguous.
When asked by Senator Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire, to define habeas corpus, Noem responded, “Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, to suspend their right to...” before being cut off.
Senator Hassan firmly replied, “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. It is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”
Noem then rephrased her answer, stating, “I support habeas corpus.” But she added, “I also recognise that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.”
This exchange came amid rising concerns that the Trump administration may attempt to suspend the centuries-old legal safeguard as part of its aggressive immigration enforcement strategy.
Suspension talk: Trump aide fuels debate
The discussion follows earlier remarks by Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, who on 9 May told reporters the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus. He said, “The Constitution is clear… the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion… So that’s an option we’re actively looking at.”
Miller further suggested that courts might not even have jurisdiction, stating, “Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration Nationality Act which stripped Article III courts… of jurisdiction over immigration cases.”
The Trump administration has argued that the U.S. is facing an “invasion” of illegal migrants, invoking language typically associated with war or national emergency. The aim is to expedite deportations without lengthy legal proceedings. However, this framing has been widely challenged in courts and the press.
What is 'Habeas corpus'?
Habeas corpus—Latin for “you have the body”—is a legal doctrine that dates back to English common law and was codified in the U.S. Constitution to ensure that the government must justify detaining any person before a neutral judge. The Constitution only allows its suspension “when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”
Historically, suspension has occurred just four times. President Abraham Lincoln first suspended it during the Civil War to detain Confederate sympathisers, a move initially rebuked by the Supreme Court’s then-Chief Justice Roger Taney. Congress later granted Lincoln retroactive approval. It was suspended again under President Ulysses S. Grant to combat Ku Klux Klan violence, in the Philippines in 1905, and in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbour attack in 1941.
Legal scholars, including now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett, have noted that although the Constitution does not specify which branch may suspend habeas corpus, most agree that only Congress holds that power.
Following the gaffe, Kristi Noem has come under intense scrutiny on social media after a video of her misdefining the legal principle of habeas corpus during a Senate hearing went viral.
The moment was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by political commentator Brian Krassenstein. “We are living in the dumbest of times,” Krassenstein wrote, summing up what many users echoed in the comments.
BREAKING: Kristi Noem, the head of DHS, has no f-cking clue what habeas corpus means.
— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) May 20, 2025
We are living in the dumbest of times.
Noem: “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country”. pic.twitter.com/1CB2Yd96hC
The backlash was swift and biting.
One user responded, “I was laughing so hard! That’s why she plays dress-up, because she can’t do anything else.” Another added, “Dangerously dumb.” Comments ranged from blunt jabs—“She’s as dumb as a bag of rocks”—to more pointed speculation: “She’s playing dumb. Has to be.” Another said plainly, “The head of the department is freaking CLUELESS! My God!”
The social media storm erupted after Noem told Senator Maggie Hassan during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing that habeas corpus was “a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.” Hassan, a Democrat and former attorney, immediately corrected her: “Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people.”
Judiciary pushback likely
John Blume, professor at Cornell Law School, said Noem’s remarks reflect either “a fundamental misunderstanding” or deliberate misinformation. “She was giving an answer she knew was wrong to appease the president,” he told reporters.
Blume also cast doubt on the administration’s ability to suspend habeas corpus, even under claims of invasion. “That position would be very unlikely to fly with the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added.
This is not the administration’s first brush with sweeping legal authority. Trump previously cited the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members. Federal courts across states including New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania blocked the move, citing insufficient evidence of a true national threat.
Unlike previous administrations, even during times of crisis, President Trump’s team appears more willing to stretch executive power. After the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush chose not to suspend habeas corpus but instead detained terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court later ruled in 2008 that detainees had the right to challenge their detention under habeas corpus.
Senator Hassan pressed Noem further on whether she would follow a hypothetical court ruling overturning a presidential suspension of habeas corpus. Noem responded, “I’m following all court orders… as is the president.” To which Hassan responded bluntly, “That is obviously not true for anybody who reads the news.”
A divided government, a divided opinion
Any attempt to suspend habeas corpus now would face steep hurdles. With only narrow Republican majorities in Congress, gaining legislative support would be difficult. Courts, too, remain a bulwark against executive overreach, as seen in repeated rulings that have blocked Trump-era immigration measures.
Still, the administration's interest in circumventing traditional legal pathways to speed up deportations signals a concerning shift.
At its core, the clash over habeas corpus is more than a political spat—it’s a test of the balance between national security and civil liberties. And for many, the answer should never be ambiguous.
You may also like
Bigg Boss 19 to begin early in 2025; expected premiere date
6.1-magnitude quake shakes southern Greek islands
For true local vibes, this is one of Goa's best neighbourhood bars
ITEP NCET 2025: What is ITEP course, why take admission in it instead of B.Ed?
Sonu Sood: Fans were surprised to see Sonu Sood in this avatar, said- 'I still remember Nagraj Comics'..
