In an alarming new twist to his immigration policy, President Donald Trump is considering suspending habeas corpus, the constitutional guarantee that allows any detained person to challenge his or her arrest in court. The measure, which has only been used on rare occasions throughout U.S. history, has set off alerts among jurists, human rights advocates and international organizations.

"The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," White House senior adviser Stephen Miller said Friday in justifying why the administration is "actively exploring" that possibility. Trump has repeatedly called irregular migration an "invasion" and has sought to expedite deportations without judicial intervention. But many federal judges have blocked his actions, claiming they violate due process.

An obstacle called the Constitution

Habeas corpus has historically been one of the pillars of the U.S. legal system, enshrined in the Magna Carta as a safeguard against arbitrary detention. It has only been suspended in extreme circumstances, such as during the Civil War under Abraham Lincoln or after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

However, so far in 2025, multiple judges have ruled against summary deportations ordered by the Trump administration precisely because of the absence of basic due process. One of the most emblematic examples is the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Venezuelan migrant deported in March on a baseless accusation of belonging to the Tren de Aragua criminal group, and sent without trial to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. Days later it was revealed that it had been a mistake.

The episode set off alarm bells. Not only because of the obvious violation of due process, but because of the way the government used an old law from 1798 - the Alien Enemies Act - to justify the collective deportation of suspected criminals without judicial review.

Mass deportations and secret agreements

Since January, Trump has implemented a strategy of accelerated deportations, relying on little-used legislation and establishing secret agreements with allied governments, such as that of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador. As reported by the White House, six million dollars were paid for the Central American country to incarcerate hundreds of migrants -mostly Venezuelans- in the Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot).

This agreement has already been denounced before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) by at least four human rights organizations. In their complaint, they claim that the migrants were victims of forced disappearances and that their families have not received information about their whereabouts or the charges against them.

"We are asking for precautionary measures because the situation is serious and imminent," Isabel Carlota Roby, a lawyer with Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, told AFP.

The Supreme Court battle

Meanwhile, the government has also stepped up its efforts to repeal existing legal protections. This week it asked the Supreme Court to allow it to eliminate parole status for more than 530,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, in addition to ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for some 350,000 Venezuelans. Lower courts had already blocked these measures, in part because the migrants had legal authorization to reside in the U.S. and had not committed any crime.

A federal judge in California even suggested that the motivation behind the revocation of TPS "smacks of racism".

Protests: there is resistance

Faced with the advance of these policies, civil society has begun to mobilize. This week, dozens of Mormon women gathered on the Capitol lawn to protest in an unusual way: sewing quilts with messages such as "No one is illegal" or "A government of laws, not of men".

Organized by Mormon Women for Ethical Government, the protesters said they were alarmed by the government's attacks on the Constitution and the increasing concentration of power in the Executive. "The Constitution is our common thread," said one participant, Jessica Preece.

Will it succeed?

Suspending habeas corpus would be an unprecedented peacetime move and would face enormous legal challenges. The Supreme Court, although with a conservative majority, has blocked several of the current administration's most aggressive immigration policies. Moreover, activating such a stay would require formally declaring a state of invasion, which has not occurred.

But the very fact that the president is even considering it reveals how far he is willing to go to fulfill his promise to deport millions of migrants. Beyond the political impact, what is at stake is the integrity of the system of legal safeguards that protects every person - documented or not - from arbitrary detention.

For many legal voices, that line has already been crossed.

With information from AFP