As we near the 250th anniversary of the Revolutionary War, it seems fitting to recall the fundamental rights that fueled the conflict against tyranny in America. At the heart of this struggle were the government’s arbitrary infringements on civil liberties, particularly the right to due legal process before any imprisonment.
Alexander Hamilton cautioned against “arbitrary incarceration practices,” describing them as the “favorite and most frightening instrument of tyranny” throughout history. This right, which has evolved over centuries within Anglo-American legal traditions, is foundational to our legal system.
The seeds of due process trace back to the Magna Carta, the pivotal document imposed on King John at Runnymede in 1215.
The Magna Carta’s Chapter 39 states that “a freeman cannot be seized or imprisoned, deprived of his rights or property, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
The constitutional framework adopted by early American settlers reflected their Anglo-Saxon legal heritage. In the 1770s, they felt their British rights were being neglected. The Declaration of Independence pointed fingers at George III for imposing “absolute tyranny” on the colonies, meddling with the judiciary and stripping settlers of their right to trial by jury.
This is why these protections are woven into the Constitution. The First Article explicitly enshrines habeas corpus, while the Fifth and Sixth Amendments ensure due process. Essentially, the Fifth Amendment asserts that life, liberty, or property cannot be taken without due legal process.
Recent actions surrounding immigration under Trump evoke a stark deviation from these essential principles.
The U.S. government has been sending, at considerable cost, immigrants from Venezuela and El Salvador to one of the largest security prisons. These individuals are accused of being linked to criminal gangs, yet there has been no substantial evidence presented, leaving them with no opportunity to defend themselves.
The Fifth Amendment’s protections are not limited to citizens; it explicitly prohibits deprivation of freedom without justification.
The Fourth Circuit ruled alongside the District Court that the government must facilitate the return of an individual, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, back to the U.S. to allow for questioning about the gang claims against him. Judge Harvey J. Wilkinson, appointed by Reagan, penned the majority opinion, rejecting the government’s emergency stay request, stating, “The government insists on the right to keep residents of this country hidden in foreign prisons without the due processes that serve as the cornerstone of our constitutional order.”
Wilkinson also dismissed the government’s claim that relocating prisoners somehow absolves it from constitutional obligations.
The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling for the government’s return of Garcia faced backlash from the White House.
Trump has indicated plans to increase such practices, even threatening to send “in-law criminals” to similar prisons abroad. “Your country’s criminals then…you have to build five more places,” he was quoted saying during a conversation with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele.
When challenged about supporting the Constitution in a TV interview, Trump responded, “I don’t know,” while top aide Stephen Miller noted their administration was “actively watching” a “disruption of habits.”
This viewpoint runs counter to the principles underlying American law. As Judge Antonin Scalia once articulated, “the core freedom ensured by the Anglo-Saxon system was a protection against indefinite imprisonment at the whim of the executive.”
Trump has claimed that ensuring justice for each defendant would be too lengthy; however, due process doesn’t necessarily imply exhaustive proceedings. It might just require a hearing before an immigration official or an administrative judge. The essential aspect is that those accused have the chance to defend themselves.
A widely shared sentiment on social media captures it well: “You can’t argue that criminals don’t deserve a legitimate process. Due process decides if they are criminals. Otherwise, you’re just targeting people you dislike.”
In advocating for sound legal processes, we aren’t protecting only criminals; we’re safeguarding all from unchecked powers—something the founders of America vehemently opposed. Trump’s actions and remarks pose a serious risk to the very freedoms that define our nation.
