Earlier this year, we encouraged Nebraskans to keep their heads amid the nonstop “shock and awe” of modern political news cycles. We offered three simple questions to ask when faced with extreme, often outrageous claims:

1. Does this issue have real-world consequences?

2. Does this affect actual people’s lives in meaningful ways?

3. Who gains from this?

At the time, we cautioned against being baited into outrage over distractions. Civic resilience, we wrote, means tuning out the noise and focusing on what’s essential. But sometimes, even amid the chaos, something breaks through that is essential – something that is not noise but signal, something that deserves our attention.

Recent comments from Stephen Miller, the White House’s deputy chief of staff, about suspending the writ of habeas corpus in immigration cases are exactly that kind of moment. So let’s apply our three questions and see why it must not be ignored.

1. Does this issue have real-world consequences?

At first glance, Miller’s comments might seem like typical bombast, another shocking declaration meant to stir up headlines and rile political opponents. After all, we’ve seen this before: declare an “invasion” at the southern border, redefine legal norms, and set the narrative ablaze.

But this isn’t just theater. Miller is a key architect of the president’s immigration policy and has a long track record of testing the boundaries of the Constitution. The administration has already issued executive orders invoking wartime powers to detain and deport migrants under the pretense of a national “invasion.” And while multiple federal courts have rejected that framing, the administration is pressing forward.

So yes, this is real. It’s not just noise. It’s a direct statement of intent to strip due process rights from human beings under U.S. jurisdiction. That is not politics-as-theater. That’s an authoritarian impulse, spoken aloud.

2. Is this being amplified to distract from more important issues?

We’d argue no – this is the important issue. The writ of habeas corpus – often called “The Great Writ” – is a cornerstone of liberty. It ensures that anyone held by the government has the right to challenge their detention in court. It is the safeguard against tyranny, a principle that predates the United States and was deemed so essential by the Founders that they wrote it into the Constitution itself.

Miller’s assertion that habeas can be suspended because the courts aren’t ruling the way the administration wants turns the Constitution on its head. It’s legally incorrect, obviously, but it’s also a dangerous inversion of democratic governance. Habeas corpus has only been suspended in the gravest of national crises: the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan uprisings, the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.

Even then, suspension required congressional action, not a unilateral decision by the president or his advisers. Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Amy Coney Barrett, have affirmed that only Congress holds this power.

Stripping habeas rights from migrants means the government could detain people indefinitely, without any judicial review, solely on the administration’s say-so. That’s the stuff of police states. It’s not who we are or who we claim to be.

And while this might seem distant from our daily lives in Nebraska, we must remember: Our Constitution doesn’t just protect citizens. It protects persons. That means all people under U.S. jurisdiction. When we allow those rights to be suspended for some, we open the door for them to be suspended for all.

3. Who gains from this?

If left unconfronted by Americans, the answer is: those who flout the rule of law in service of narrow agendas. We’ve seen time and time again the administration and its allies working to normalize the once-unthinkable. Through repetition, buzzword, and message intensity, egregious notions gradually become more palatable. 

We should assume that in the coming days and weeks, administration-friendly media outlets will continue to attempt to erode this bedrock legal principle. This is where civic resilience truly begins. We have tools – legal, institutional, cultural, moral, and civic – to confront this challenge, and we must use them.

First, we have the power to name the threat. Call this what it is: an attack on due process, human dignity, and constitutional order. This is about unchecked executive power under the guise of border security.

Second, we have the power to support the institutions holding the line. Judges across the country have rejected the administration’s arguments. Legal organizations are fighting these efforts in court. Advocacy groups are rallying support for those targeted. We can donate, volunteer, and amplify their work.

Third, we have the power to demand action from our representatives. Congress, and only Congress, can suspend habeas corpus. Contact your members of Congress and make it clear: Any attempt to strip this right is unacceptable. Period, end of sentence.

Finally, we have the power to remember and remind that the purest form of democracy is people standing up, speaking out, and insisting that we do not abandon our values out of fear or political expedience. 

Unfortunately, some of us will abandon our values. Which is what makes a moment from earlier this month especially chilling. When the president was asked directly on Meet the Press whether he believes he is required to follow the Constitution, his answer was, “I don’t know.”

Let that sink in. The president of the United States, sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, could not bring himself to affirm its authority. That admission alone should ring every alarm bell in the land.

Habeas corpus may sound like an arcane legal concept. But its meaning is simple, and profound: The government cannot lock you up and throw away the key. Not without cause. Not without review. Not without justice.

That principle matters. It matters in Nebraska, on the southern border, to citizens and noncitizens alike. The second we treat any group of people as beneath the protections of our Constitution, we endanger the very idea of equal justice under law.