On January 22nd, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) detained 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father, asylum seekers in Minneapolis, and sent them to a detention facility in Dilley, Texas. On January 26th, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery of San Antonio responded to a petition for Habeas Corpus by ordering that they not be transferred out of the court’s jurisdiction while pending review and potential orders from the court. This seems like a good moment to explore the Constitutional right to petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty. At its core, it ensures that no person — citizen or not — can be detained by the government without the right to challenge their detention before a judge. It is a cornerstone of due process and acts as a safeguard against arbitrary, unlawful, or indefinite confinement.
Habeas Corpus, Latin for the statement that “You should have the (living) body,” is the legal response in Anglo/American law to those in power who make people disappear into state custody or exile, which can be most clearly seen in foreign contexts. Think of Soviet dissidents sent to gulags. Recall South American reformers referred to only as “The Disappeared.” Nazi concentration camps are the unparalleled 20th-century example. But the desire to use power to seize opponents, rivals, and “others” predates the past century.
In England, subjects gradually gained protection from arbitrary detention. By the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, no “free man” could be detained except on a charge or conviction of an offense (Britannica). Once brought forward, the individual was subject to the court’s jurisdiction to be freed, bailed, or returned to legally sanctioned custody. Although the principle was established centuries earlier, abuses persisted. Conflicts over succession to the throne and established religion led to rivals and suspected traitors or heretics being quickly imprisoned. The abuses of the 1500s prompted Parliament to strengthen the principle through legislation, most notably the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. It no longer only protected “free men” but extended protection to all inhabitants of England. Additionally, prisoners who had not consented to or been sentenced to exile could not be deported to “any place beyond the seas” (Britannica).
For the framers of the U.S. Constitution, these precedents were highly significant. Habeas Corpus is one of the few civil rights included in the body of the Constitution. The Suspension Clause states that “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” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2). Congress holds the authority to suspend Habeas Corpus, as determined by Supreme Court rulings. It has been officially suspended only four times. When President Lincoln did so, the Supreme Court ruled that he had exceeded his executive power, and he was required to seek retroactive approval from Congress. Under President Grant, Congress approved the suspension to address Ku Klux Klan violence. The only 20th-century suspensions occurred in the U.S. territories of the Philippines and Hawaii before statehood.
In recent decades, two federal statutes have restricted habeas corpus in specific cases. The Supreme Court upheld a 1996 law that banned multiple petitions from prisoners detained for state offenses. It has also addressed limited issues related to the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The Insurrection Act of 1807, last invoked in 1992 to suppress rioting after Rodney King’s death, seems to provide another way to bypass Habeas Corpus. In summary, suspension is a Congressional power that has been rarely used, targeted, and always controversial. As the Supreme Court stated: “At its historical core, the writ of Habeas Corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest” (533 U.S. at 301 in Constitution Annotated).
SOURCES
Adrian Conejo Arias, and LCR, a Minor Child by and through His Parent and Guardian Adrian Conejo Arias. Civil Case No. SA-26-CV-415-FB (2026), U.S. District Court, San Antonio Division.
“Habeas Corpus,” Encyclopaedia Britannica.
“Suspension Clause,” National Constitution Center (constitutioncenter.org).
“Suspension Clause and Writ of Habeas Corpus,” Constitution Annotated (constitution.congress.gov).
United States Constitution