Politics in 2026 feels like a fever dream sometimes. If you’ve been following the news lately, you probably saw the clip of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem getting grilled in front of the Senate. It was one of those rare, genuine "cringe" moments that actually matters for how the law works in this country.
Basically, the whole thing started when Senator Maggie Hassan asked a dead-simple question: "What is habeas corpus?"
Now, if you’re a high schooler or a law student, you probably know the answer. But for the person running the Department of Homeland Security, the answer she gave was… well, it was something else entirely. Noem didn't just stumble; she flipped the entire concept on its head.
The Definition That Set the Internet on Fire
Honestly, it’s hard to overstate how weird this exchange was. When asked to define the term, Kristi Noem said that habeas corpus is a "constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country."
Wait. What?
Senator Hassan had to stop her right there. She pointed out that it’s actually the exact opposite. Habeas corpus—which literally translates from Latin as "you have the body"—is a protection for the individual against the government. It’s the legal mechanism that lets a prisoner show up in front of a judge to ask, "Hey, why am I being held?"
💡 You might also like: White House Tariff Announcement: What Most People Get Wrong
If the government can’t provide a legal reason to keep you, the judge orders your release. It is a check on power, not a weapon for the president to use.
Why the confusion matters
Some people might say this is just a game of "gotcha" politics. It's not. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently overseeing some of the largest mass deportation efforts in American history. When the person in charge of those operations suggests that a fundamental civil liberty is actually a presidential "right to remove" people, it sends a massive chill through the legal community.
Think about it.
If the administration views habeas corpus as a tool for removal rather than a shield against unlawful detention, what does that mean for the thousands of people currently sitting in ICE facilities?
The Battle Over "Suspension"
It gets deeper. This isn't just about a bad definition in a hearing. There has been a lot of talk behind the scenes—specifically involving White House advisors like Stephen Miller—about actually suspending habeas corpus.
They’re looking at the "Suspension Clause" in Article I of the Constitution. It says the writ can be suspended in cases of "rebellion or invasion." The administration’s argument? The situation at the southern border counts as an invasion.
During her testimony, Noem backed this play. She told Representative Eli Crane that while she isn't a "constitutional lawyer," she believes the border situation qualifies as an invasion that could justify a suspension.
The Lincoln "Precedent"
When Hassan pushed back, Noem interjected with, "Lincoln used it!"
She’s right, sort of. Abraham Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War. But there’s a massive "but" there. The Supreme Court actually ruled his action unconstitutional at the time. Eventually, Congress had to step in and pass a law to retroactively authorize it.
The big takeaway here is that the power to suspend this right belongs to Congress, not the President acting alone.
Real-World Consequences: The Case of Mahmoud Khalil
To understand why this matters, you have to look at what's happening on the ground. Take the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist at Columbia University.
In March 2025, Khalil was arrested at his New York apartment by ICE agents. His lawyers immediately filed a habeas petition because the government was moving him around so fast they couldn't even find him. One minute the database said he was in New York; the next, he was in New Jersey. By the time they caught up, he was being flown to Louisiana.
- A federal judge in New Jersey originally stepped in to stop the deportation.
- The government argued the court didn't even have jurisdiction.
- Just a few days ago, on January 15, 2026, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Khalil has to go through the immigration court system before he can keep fighting in federal court.
This is the "habeas" battle in real-time. If the administration succeeds in redefining or suspending these rights, people like Khalil—who was a lawful permanent resident—could be whisked away with no chance to see a judge at all.
What Most People Get Wrong
There’s a common misconception that these rights only apply to citizens. That is 100% false.
The Supreme Court has been pretty clear over the decades: habeas corpus extends to non-citizens on U.S. soil. It even extends to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It’s not about who you are; it’s about where the government is holding you.
📖 Related: The Map of J\&K State: What Most People Get Wrong About These Borders
If you're in the custody of the United States, the government has to follow the rules.
Actionable Insights: What to Watch For
The legal landscape is shifting fast. If you're trying to keep track of where the Noem/DHS policy is heading, watch these three areas:
- The "Invasion" Trigger: Keep an eye on any formal executive orders declaring the border an "invasion" under the Suspension Clause. This will be the first step in a massive legal showdown at the Supreme Court.
- Jurisdictional Fights: Look at cases like the Khalil appeal. The government is trying to limit where and when people can file habeas petitions. If they can force everyone into "administrative" immigration courts (which are run by the executive branch) and away from "Article III" federal judges, they effectively bypass the check on their power.
- Congressional Approval: Watch for any bills in the House or Senate that attempt to authorize a suspension. Without Congress, the President is on very thin legal ice.
The bottom line? Habeas corpus is the only thing standing between a free society and a system where the government can just make people disappear. Whether you agree with the current administration's immigration goals or not, the "ICE Barbie" nickname or the political theater shouldn't distract from the fact that the literal definition of our rights is being rewritten in real-time.
To stay informed, you should regularly check the dockets of the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts, as these are currently the primary "battleground" courts for habeas corpus challenges against the DHS. Following updates from the American Immigration Council or the National Constitution Center can also provide a non-partisan look at how these definitions are evolving in the 2026 legal term.