NYT Memos Show Stephen Miller Pushed Habeas Suspension, Backed Off 2nd Insurrection Act Plan
Updated
Updated · The Daily Beast · Jun 15
NYT Memos Show Stephen Miller Pushed Habeas Suspension, Backed Off 2nd Insurrection Act Plan
2 articles · Updated · The Daily Beast · Jun 15
Summary
Secret White House memos show top aide Stephen Miller pressed in 2025 to suspend habeas corpus for migrants, despite staff secretary Will Scharf warning the idea would almost certainly fail in court.
April and October memos also document Scharf’s resistance to invoking the Insurrection Act, calling it a tightly constrained “break-the-glass” power as Miller and Vice President JD Vance pushed broader executive action.
January protests in Minnesota after 2 Americans were fatally shot by federal immigration agents triggered the sharpest clash, but Vance and Miller backed off after aides warned of legal and political risks.
The administration still achieved much of Miller’s immigration goal by other means: from July 2025, ICE curtailed bond hearings for most detainees, and petitions challenging detention later surged nearly 10,000%.
The disclosures add to mounting scrutiny of Trump’s second White House, where officials told the Times they routinely weighed aggressive legal options with Trump as the final decision-maker.
How are hundreds of quiet policy changes creating a new immigration system beyond public view?
What precedent would deploying the military for immigration raids set for its use in domestic affairs?
With federal courts split, what is the fate of thousands of migrants being detained indefinitely without bond hearings?
Testing the Limits: Trump’s 2025-2026 Proposals to Suspend Habeas Corpus and Invoke the Insurrection Act—Legal, Political, and Constitutional Fallout
Overview
As of June 2026, the Trump administration’s proposals to invoke the Insurrection Act and suspend habeas corpus remain highly controversial, reflecting a broader effort to expand presidential power. These actions have alarmed legal scholars and former officials, who warn of possible constitutional crises and threats to civil liberties. The debate centers on the tension between executive authority in times of crisis and the protection of individual rights. Historical Supreme Court decisions, such as Ex parte Milligan, have shaped a legal consensus that limits presidential power, especially when it risks undermining fundamental freedoms during emergencies.