<p>Since illegal immigration is an "invasion," deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller <a class="Link" href="https://reason.com/2025/05/13/since-immigration-is-an-invasion-a-top-trump-adviser-says-the-president-might-suspend-habeas-corpus/" target="_blank" >told</a> reporters in May 2025, the Trump administration was "actively looking" at suspending the writ of habeas corpus to facilitate its mass deportation campaign. It turns out that Miller was not just spitballing: According to <a class="Link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/trump-scharf-habeas-corpus-insurrection-act.html" target="_blank" >recent reporting</a> by The New York Times, his comment reflected a serious internal debate about whether to unilaterally override the <a class="Link" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus" target="_blank" >ancient principle</a> that people nabbed by the government have a right to challenge their detention in court.</p><p>That episode is alarming insofar as it illustrates the Trump administration's disregard for civil liberties. But it is also at least a little reassuring, since Miller's jaw-dropping proposal was ultimately nixed by objections from White House staff secretary Will Scharf, a conservative attorney who explained why it was a legal nonstarter.</p><p>Miller was right that letting detainees seek judicial review makes it harder to eject unwanted foreigners from the country.