Disappearance of the "Writ of Habeas Corpus" from the US Constitution: Implications and Challenges

What is "Habeas Corpus"?

In an incident that sparked wide controversy, a fundamental clause disappeared from the US Constitution's official page on the Library of Congress website, a clause strongly opposed by former President Donald Trump. This refers to Clause 9 of Article One, which clearly states: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The "Writ of Habeas Corpus" is a cornerstone of the legal system, a fundamental constitutional right that protects individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention. Under this right, any detained person can request to appear before a court to verify the legality of their detention, ensuring no individual is imprisoned without just legal cause. For more information on this principle, you can refer to the source from Cornell Law School.

The Trump Administration's Stance on the Principle

Trump and his administration officials, such as Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, have long expressed their intention to challenge or suspend this constitutional principle, especially in the context of their efforts to arrest and deport immigrants. Miller explicitly hinted at the possibility of suspending this right in times of "invasion" to support mass deportation campaigns. Noem, on the other hand, offered an erroneous interpretation of the principle, claiming it grants the President the authority to remove individuals from the country, which completely contradicts its true meaning. Even Trump himself showed clear hesitation when asked about his commitment to protecting the Constitution and ensuring due process.

Official Explanation of the Incident

Officials in the Trump administration stated that the deletion of this part was merely a "technical glitch," which the Library of Congress later confirmed via platform X (formerly Twitter), noting it was a "coding error." The deleted parts were indeed restored to the page later that same day.

Broader Dimensions and Attempts at Control

It should be noted that removing parts of the US Constitution from a webpage, even if it belongs to an institution that is not its official custodian, does not change American law. However, this incident clearly highlights the intentions of Trump and his senior officials to challenge and violate the Constitution.

These developments come at a time when Trump is attempting to assert control over the Library of Congress, which administratively falls under the legislative branch and serves as a research arm for Congress, in addition to being the world's largest repository of books, manuscripts, maps, photographs, and recordings. Trump had announced his intention to dismiss Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, before the end of her 10-year term, and sought to replace her with Todd Blanck, who served as his personal lawyer. Hayden appealed the decision to terminate her service after a judge had earlier refused to issue an order preventing her removal.