Habeas Who? Noem’s Constitutional Blunder Exposes a Dangerous Ignorance at the Heart of Punk’s DHS

In a stunning display that ricocheted across Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the cabinet official entrusted with vast powers over detention and deportation, revealed a profound and frankly terrifying misunderstanding of one of the most fundamental safeguards of individual liberty in the U.S. Constitution: the writ of habeas corpus. Before a Senate committee, under direct questioning, Secretary Noem didn’t just fumble a legal term; she inverted its very meaning, transforming a centuries-old shield against unlawful imprisonment into a supposed presidential power to expel people from the country.

This wasn’t merely an embarrassing gaffe; it was a chilling window into the mindset of an administration already aggressively pushing the boundaries of executive authority and due process, raising the deeply unsettling question: Is this level of constitutional illiteracy—or willful disregard—an isolated incident, or does it permeate the highest levels of government?

The jaw-dropping moment occurred during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the DHS budget. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), zeroing in on the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, posed a straightforward question: “Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?”

Noem’s response was immediate and astonishing: “Well,” she began, “habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to—”

“No,” Senator Hassan interjected sharply. “Let me stop you, ma’am. Excuse me, that’s incorrect. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.” Hassan then pressed Noem if she supported this “core protection”—that the government must present a public justification to detain or imprison someone. Noem replied, “Yes, I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not.”

The Secretary’s understanding was further tested by Senator Andy Kim (D-N.J.). Despite citing Abraham Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War as a precedent for presidential power to suspend habeas corpus, Noem admitted under his questioning that she wasn’t sure how many times the right had actually been suspended in U.S. history or, critically, from where in the Constitution such authority even derived. When Senator Kim pointed out that the Suspension Clause is in Article I—which outlines the powers of Congress—Noem acknowledged that Article I pertains to Congress, yet seemed unable to reconcile this with her assertion of unilateral presidential authority. This follows her admission in a House hearing just last week where she stated, “I am not a constitutional lawyer,” even while opining that a migrant surge might justify suspending legal rights.

Let’s be clear: habeas corpus, Latin for “you shall have the body,” is not a presidential cudgel for deportation. It is enshrined in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution as a fundamental individual right to challenge unlawful detention by forcing the government to bring a detainee before a court and justify their imprisonment. The Constitution explicitly states this “privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Legal experts and historical precedent overwhelmingly affirm that the power to suspend this writ, under these dire and specific circumstances, rests with Congress, not the President acting alone.

As Professor Brandon Garrett of Duke University Law School commented in response to the hearing, Secretary Noem’s remarks represent “the latest in ‘a series of recent misstatements by federal officials regarding the basic constitutional protections of habeas corpus.'” Professor Garrett clarified unequivocally: “The Suspension Clause is quite restrictive permitting Congress to suspend habeas corpus only in exceptional circumstances. The President cannot suspend the writ.”

The historical precedents often invoked by those asserting broad presidential power over habeas corpus crumble under scrutiny. While DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin attempted to defend Noem’s initial gaffe by citing past presidential suspensions by Lincoln, Grant, FDR, and Bush during crises, the details matter. Abraham Lincoln’s initial unilateral suspension of habeas corpus in 1861, while Congress was not in session, was subsequently ruled by the Supreme Court (in Ex Parte Merryman) to be an authority he lacked; it wasn’t until 1863 that Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, formally granting him that power for the duration of the war. Similarly, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order leading to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was, and remains, a deeply controversial action that faced legal challenges on habeas corpus grounds. In three of the four historical instances of suspension, Congress explicitly authorized the action.

Secretary Noem’s alarming display of constitutional confusion is not occurring in a vacuum. It is deeply intertwined with the Punk administration’s aggressive and legally dubious immigration enforcement strategies. White House senior adviser Stephen Miller recently floated the idea of suspending habeas corpus for migrants, arguing that a surge at the border constitutes an “invasion.” President Punk himself invoked the archaic 1798 Alien Enemies Act in March, declaring an “invasion” by the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua to justify detaining and deporting alleged members without normal due process. Just last Friday, May 16th, the Supreme Court intervened, granting a preliminary injunction to block the removal of one group of these Venezuelans, stating that the administration’s provision of roughly 24-hour notice before deportation, “devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”

This context makes Secretary Noem’s statements all the more disturbing. Her attempt to redefine a fundamental right that protects individuals from arbitrary state power into a power of the state to remove individuals highlights either a profound ignorance at the highest levels of DHS or, more ominously, a deliberate attempt to normalize a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution to suit a hardline political agenda.

It forces the uncomfortable, rhetorical question: Is this level of misunderstanding—or contempt—for basic constitutional law isolated to one cabinet secretary, or is it indicative of a broader mindset within this White House? When the very officials charged with enforcing laws and protecting the homeland display such a tenuous grasp of the foundational limits on their power, it signals a potential crisis for the rule of law itself.

This is far more than a momentary embarrassment for Secretary Noem. It is a five-alarm fire for American freedoms. Habeas corpus is not an inconvenience to be brushed aside in the pursuit of policy goals; it is a bedrock principle that distinguishes a constitutional republic from an authoritarian state. When those in power either do not understand this, or choose to ignore it, the danger to every citizen’s liberty is real and immediate. Vigilance from the public, rigorous oversight from Congress (if it can find its constitutional spine), and an unwavering defense from the judiciary are all that stand between the preservation of these rights and their erosion by an executive branch that seems increasingly impatient with constitutional constraints.