Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, has sparked a bit of a storm after suggesting the U.S. Constitution gives the green light to suspend certain civil liberties in times of “rebellion or invasion.” Yep, you read that right—he’s floating the idea of halting habeas corpus, a legal right that protects people from being unlawfully detained. And let’s just say, the reaction has been… not great.
Miller made the comments after what’s being described as a “direct” message from the Supreme Court in its recent ruling against Trump. Trying to make a case for drastic action, he told reporters, “A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.” That vague yet ominous statement has only fuelled more concerns about what Trump’s circle might be planning if he gets back into power.
More: Mike Pence Slams Trump’s Air Force One Deal in Explosive Interview
More: Kash Patel delivers fiery warning after FBI disrupts mass shooting terror plot targeting military
But former prosecutor Joyce Vance wasn’t having any of it. In a scathing response, she pointed out that Trump and his team don’t always get their way, despite the bluster. “Trump doesn’t always win,” she reminded readers, urging people not to panic over every headline.
As for Miller’s dramatic take on suspending civil liberties? Vance didn’t hold back. “It’s a ridiculous, anti-constitutional suggestion from someone who isn’t a lawyer,” she wrote, shutting it down entirely. She went on to explain that Miller’s claim about suspending habeas corpus during an “invasion” overlooks some pretty major legal steps, like defining who exactly is invading and who would be stripped of their rights.
More: JD Vance Meets Pope Leo XIV Amid Tension and Historic Moment
More: Trump Erupts After Court Blocks Gang Deportation Plan
Even if you buy into Miller’s hypothetical about gangs crossing the border, Vance argued, that still doesn’t justify scrapping protections for the people who rely on habeas corpus the most: prisoners already held in federal or state custody.
The bigger concern, she says, isn’t necessarily that these ideas will succeed, but that they’re being floated at all. “Trump’s plan’s success isn’t inevitable,” she wrote. But she warned that while people should take Trump’s aims seriously, it’s equally important to “dismiss some of the ideas his people float for what they are—ridiculous.”
So, while this latest legal curveball from Trumpworld might sound alarming on the surface, critics are making it clear: it’s legally flimsy, constitutionally dodgy, and unlikely to stand up to any serious scrutiny.
You Might Also Like:
- Prince Harry’s Rift with Royal Family Risks Damaging King Charles’ Legacy
- Prince Harry is moving on from his issues with the Royal Family, says an expert
- Barron Trump Behind the Scenes: Did Donald’s Teen Son Orchestrate His Viral Campaign Move?
- Prince William Has ‘Lost All His Patience’ When It Comes to Harry and Meghan, Insider Claims
- Blood Type Study Sparks Concern Over Breast Cancer Risk Spike