Shortly after World War II, Harvard Law School spent $27.50 for an old copy of the Magna Carta — or what the school officials thought was an old copy.
As the world learned this week, two British scholars confirmed what Harvard actually purchased was an incredibly rare version written 700 years ago. It’s one of only seven copies known to exist.
For those unfamiliar with it, the Magna Carta was a revolutionary document that established the principle that the king is subject to the law, and the rights outlined in that document have inspired constitutions around the globe.
But the timing of the discovery was especially significant this week for reasons that might not be immediately obvious.
As historian Heather Cox Richardson explained by way of her Substack newsletter, the Magna Carta “established the writ of habeas corpus — a prohibition on unlawful imprisonment — and the concept of the right to trial by jury.” Indeed, as The New York Times noted, one of its most famous passages states, “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”
The day before the world learned about Harvard Law School’s unexpected treasure, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem happened to share some of her own thoughts on the underlying legal principle. Reuters reported:
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Wednesday that she believes recent levels of illegal immigration could provide a sufficient legal rationale to suspend habeas corpus, the right of someone in the U.S. to challenge their detention. During a hearing before a U.S. House of Representatives committee, Noem said she thought high levels of illegal border crossings under former President Joe Biden qualified under the U.S. Constitution as a reason to suspend the fundamental right.
Republican Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona specifically asked the head of the Department of Homeland Security whether she believed illegal border crossings constituted a “rebellion or invasion” that could allow for the suspension of habeas corpus.
“I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does,” Noem replied.
Her comments came just five days after Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters that White House officials are “actively looking” at possibly suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
If the White House were to suspend that bedrock legal principle, the Trump administration would have the power to lock people up without charges and prisoners would not have the ability to contest their incarceration.
Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, described Miller’s statement on Substack as “factually and legally nuts” and the “most remarkable (and remarkably scary) comments about federal courts that I think we’ve ever heard from a senior White House official.”
That assessment was more than fair. Less than a week later, the homeland security secretary has made comments similar to Miller’s — which suggests that in the Trump administration, this is not simply an academic exercise or thought experiment.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
