The Trump administration has initiated actions that seem to undermine constitutional processes. Reports suggest that they have sent immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador known as the Centre for Terrorism, or CECOT. There are even proposals for deportation to Libya, a country that the U.S. government has advised its citizens to avoid—though for now, a federal judge has blocked this move.
Typically, when individuals are removed to another nation, the administration claims it lacks the authority to bring them back. This stance contradicts a Supreme Court ruling, as they declined to support the return of an individual, Kilmer Abrego Garcia, without informing the lower courts about their actions. There’s a real sense of secrecy surrounding the administration’s practices.
Stephen Miller, a high-ranking policy advisor at the White House, has suggested halting habeas corpus—a legal safeguard that allows detained individuals to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. This approach feels less like legitimate immigration enforcement and more akin to human trafficking, leaving many uncertain about its extent and implications.
While the administration insists such measures are crucial for tackling illegal immigration, there are risks for American citizens as well. Their argument is that once people are in CECOT, they can claim that local authorities in El Salvador have jurisdiction, even if someone is mistakenly sent there. One shudders to think if a similar rationale would apply to deportations to Libya or elsewhere.
Judge Sotomayor has warned against the idea that this policy only affects non-citizens, pointing out that American citizens could also be forcibly removed and edge toward foreign prisons, deprived of judicial review.
Previously, Trump expressed a desire to send U.S. citizens to CECOT, indicating a troubling precedent, calling for the construction of more incarceration facilities abroad, echoing sentiments from El Salvador’s President Naibe Bukele about expanding such practices.
In response, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt downplayed Trump’s statements, framing them as just “floating” ideas. She maintained that they would primarily target “heinous” criminals while claiming there would be no legal pathways for sending citizens to torture facilities overseas—a rather contradictory assurance, to say the least.
Leavitt’s reassurances lack substance. The administration has shown a tendency to sidestep legal norms, treating due process as negotiable. In reality, most of the individuals sent to El Salvador lack any criminal history.
If the Supreme Court were to extend such practices to American citizens or allow for invasive measures, history provides enough warning signs. We could easily look back to similar executive actions over fifty years ago. When Richard Nixon came into office, he aimed to convey a message of law and order regarding individuals considered “dangerous.”
Traditionally, the United States upheld the principle that due process forbids holding individuals based solely on potential danger. However, Nixon sought to challenge this norm.
He collaborated with William Lanequist from his administration to create the Columbia District Act, allowing for the imprisonment of individuals based on perceived danger rather than proven guilt. Nixon’s Attorney General at the time, John Mitchell, crafted legal frameworks defending pretrial detention criteria grounded in community safety, asserting that it would only apply in limited circumstances.
This eventually led to widespread adoption of laws that compromised civil liberties. With rising crime rates, the perceived necessity for pretrial detention grew, prompting low courts to favor the government’s position, and similar legislation spread throughout the country.
If the Supreme Court ever endorses this notion of detention based on danger, like in the Salerno case, it could erase two centuries of civil rights protections, shifting the default to pretrial incarceration for a staggering majority of federal defendants.
The echoes of previous cases can be heard in today’s administration’s stances. Fear and exaggerated claims of presidential power allow for justifications of previously unimaginable actions.
As Benjamin Franklin once warned us, no individual should be subjected to harsh conditions or face deportation without proper legal procedures. The sanctity of habeas corpus must be maintained, for if the barriers guarding against injustice crumble, everyone’s freedom and safety could be at stake.
