In a May 1 decision rejecting that interpretation of the 227-year-old law, Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas, said "the historical record renders clear that the President's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms." George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin highlights "an additional reason to conclude that [Trump's] broad interpretation of 'invasion' is at odds with the original meaning of the Constitution": "If illegal migration and cross-border drug smuggling are 'invasion,' that means we are in a state of invasion at virtually all times, since these activities have been ubiquitous for so long as we have had the War on Drugs and significant migration restrictions….Given the importance that the Founders assigned to the writ of habeas corpus (British violations of the writ were among the major grievances that led to the American Revolution), they would not have created a system where the federal government could suspend it at any time." At all other times, it has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law….Unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions.
Author: Jacob Sullum
Published at: 2025-05-13 21:59:44
Still want to read the full version? Full article
