Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s proposed deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act could not be challenged through temporary restraining orders, but rather through habeas corpus challenges in the jurisdiction where the illegal immigrants were being held.

The administration hailed this as a victory, which it partly was. But now they have also, according to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, begun to consider the suspension of habeas corpus, thus removing the final piece of due process for those accused of being enemy aliens. “That’s an option we’re actively looking at,” Miller told the press. “A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

The writ of habeas corpus dates back to 12th-century England. It has endured in US law because it is fundamental to Anglo-American jurisprudence. Latin for “you shall have the body”, the writ is a way for a judge to require the executive to bring a prisoner to court and assess the legality of his detainment. The state can arrest you, but they have to give the reasons why and a judge has to rule that those reasons are lawful.

It is the oldest and most fundamental safeguard we have against arbitrary arrest. This concept is so important that the Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution, which 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.”

Suspensions have been exceedingly rare in American history. In the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended it in Maryland in 1861, and Congress also suspended the writ for certain purposes the following year. The Civil War clearly qualified as a “rebellion” — and in some places, an “invasion” — which justifies the suspension.

Since that time, no rebellion or invasion has reached these shores, though German spies were denied the benefits of habeas corpus when they were captured in the United States in 1942 and a few overseas wartime exceptions have occurred. Even during the Global War on Terror, the Bush administration was required to grant habeas relief to captured terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay in some instances.

So why, now, does Miller (and presumably Trump) think that suspension of habeas corpus is worth “looking at”? The answer can perhaps be found in Trump’s statements that, in light of the vast lawlessness of the Biden administration that allowed millions of illegal immigrants to enter and remain in the United States, requiring full trials to remove each one is impossible. It would, in Trump’s mind, allow the president to ignore the law to let illegal immigrants in, but then tie his hands when it comes to getting them out.

That would be a serious problem, if it were true. But there are two objections. One: due process being onerous does not mean it is no longer required. It has always added burdens to the state, and that’s the whole point.

More to Trump’s point: the burdens here are not that great. Congress has granted the executive branch vast, sweeping powers to deport illegal immigrants. It has never required a full trial with judge and jury, only a showing before an immigration judge that the person is, in fact, here illegally. No jury, no discovery, just a quick hearing to prove that the Government has the right person.

There is no need to overturn centuries of law and trample on the ancient rights of free men. The administration can just follow the law and do the work — it’s not that hard to deport illegal immigrants while preserving the rule of law.