In a stunning moment at a Senate hearing on May 20, 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem displayed a shocking misunderstanding of habeas corpus, a fundamental constitutional right. When asked by Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) to define the term, Noem incorrectly stated, “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.” This response was swiftly corrected by Hassan, who clarified that habeas corpus is the legal principle requiring the government to provide a public reason for detaining or imprisoning individuals, protecting against unlawful detention. Hassan emphasized its role as a “foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”
Noem’s misstatement comes amid concerns about the Trump administration’s immigration policies, particularly after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller suggested suspending habeas corpus to expedite mass deportations. Noem doubled down, asserting that the president has the authority to suspend this right, a claim legal experts refute, noting that Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution reserves suspension for Congress in cases of rebellion or invasion.
The blunder drew sharp criticism online. Posts on X described Noem’s error as “disqualifying” and “breathtakingly stupid,” with some calling for her resignation. Others highlighted the irony of her leading the Department of Homeland Security while misunderstanding a core legal protection. Critics argue this reflects a broader pattern of incompetence within the administration, especially as it pushes controversial deportation plans.
Noem later claimed to support habeas corpus but maintained the president’s authority to suspend it, citing Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War. However, Hassan pointed out that even Lincoln sought retroactive congressional approval, a nuance Noem appeared unaware of. The incident has fueled debates about the administration’s grasp of constitutional principles and its intentions regarding civil liberties, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement.
