The debate over habeas corpus, the fundamental right to challenge unlawful detention, has gained momentum amid national security concerns and legal challenges related to immigration detention and pandemic-era public health measures. While a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus, a power Congress theoretically holds under Article I of the Constitution, is unlikely in the near future, civil liberties groups are scrutinizing the erosion of its protections through legislative and judicial actions. The issue has come to the forefront in the context of Guantanamo Bay detentions, where courts have consistently narrowed the scope of habeas corpus rights over the past two decades. Recent rulings have upheld stringent limitations on the evidence detainees can present and the level of judicial review, making it extremely difficult to challenge detention successfully.

Beyond Guantanamo, a significant trend involves the growing use of prolonged immigration detention without meaningful habeas review. Advocacy groups, including the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, are highlighting cases of individuals, including asylum seekers, held for extended periods with limited access to legal counsel and diminished ability to argue for their release. These groups argue that the government is circumventing the spirit of habeas corpus by classifying detentions as civil immigration proceedings, lowering the evidentiary standard for continued detention. The COVID-19 pandemic also raised concerns about due process as courts delayed hearings and limited in-person access for detainees and their lawyers. Although pandemic-related restrictions have largely been lifted, the precedent of curtailed access remains contentious.

The Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on administrative law and deference to executive branch agencies is also subtly impacting habeas relief. Increased deference to agency interpretations of immigration law makes it harder for detainees to argue that their detention is unlawful. The concept of non-delegation doctrine is related, as broad delegations of authority to the executive branch can limit the scope of judicial review in habeas cases. While a complete suspension of habeas corpus would require extraordinary circumstances, the gradual erosion of its protections is prompting calls for legislative action to reaffirm and strengthen the right to challenge unlawful detention, ensuring a check on executive power and safeguarding individual liberty. The future of habeas corpus lies not in a dramatic suspension but in a slow, incremental diminishment that demands careful monitoring and robust legal defense.