Trump Administration’s Controversial Legal Actions Challenge Constitutional Protections

Among the numerous controversial and arguably unconstitutional measures enacted by the Trump administration, three stand out for their flagrant disregard of the rule of law.

One prominent issue is the administration’s persistent violation of due process rights, exemplified by its refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident detained in Baltimore and transferred to a prison in El Salvador. The White House not only defies the court's directive but also publicly brands Garcia as a “terrorist” and “human smuggler,” escalating attacks on his reputation.

Several Republican figures have supported the administration’s stance, arguing that due process protections do not extend to undocumented immigrants. Florida Representative Byron Donalds, a vocal supporter, declared on NBC that “due process is a privilege reserved for American citizens.” However, the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process rights to all “persons,” without distinguishing between citizens and noncitizens.

Had the drafters of these amendments intended to exclude noncitizens, they would have explicitly stated so. This is especially notable regarding the Fourteenth Amendment’s authors, who grappled with issues of citizenship and anti-immigrant sentiment within their political ranks. They deliberately chose inclusive language, ensuring due process protections apply broadly.

Another alarming development involves White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s suggestion that the president might suspend habeas corpus to prevent federal courts from ordering the release of detainees, including lawful residents facing removal. Miller stated in a briefing that the Constitution permits suspension of the writ during times of invasion and indicated that the administration is actively considering this option depending on judicial actions.

Habeas corpus, Latin for “you shall have the body,” is a legal procedure used to challenge the lawfulness of a person’s detention. When a writ is issued, the government must justify its custody before a judge. This principle, rooted in 13th-century English law, holds a foundational place in American legal tradition. Historically, its suspension by Parliament in 1777 was unprecedented and set a troubling example by allowing suspension based on status without the usual constraints of necessity or duration.