The Supreme Court, Habeas Corpus, and the People: A Turning Point in Law and Remedy
By Ronald P. Bouchard Jr.
In April of 2025, the United States Supreme Court halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, extending due process protections to foreign nationals, including those who entered the country unlawfully. On its face, the ruling appeared to be another instance of judicial overreach, undermining the Executive’s constitutional authority. But beneath the surface, something deeper may be taking shape, something that could shift the balance back toward the People, if we recognize it and act.
This article lays out the lawful foundation of that shift, the contradictions within the Court’s actions, and the opportunity now available for the People to hold the judiciary accountable and restore fundamental rights.
The Role of the Supreme Court and the Authority of the People
The United States Constitution does not place the judiciary above the People; rather, it places the judiciary under the authority of the People. As stated in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780:
“Whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness.”
The Supreme Court exists to preserve the rights of the People, not to elevate procedure above justice. And yet, when state agencies like Child Protective Services remove children without due process, and courts deny access to trial by jury or suppress standing through procedural games, the Court remains silent.
April 17, 2025: Judicial Favor for Foreign Invaders
In the Court’s decision on April seventeenth, twenty twenty-five, it halted lawful Executive deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, citing due process concerns for non-citizens. The Executive’s authority under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” was directly undermined by this ruling.
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972)
“When the Executive exercises this power… courts have no judicial authority to second-guess the political branches.” Reinforces that judicial intervention in lawful Executive immigration enforcement is prohibited when lawful authority is being exercised.
Who Does Due Process Apply To?
Due process was always meant for the People, it’s a protection for those within the covenant of law. Extending it to those who have broken that covenant through unlawful entry is a distortion. And yet the Court has done just that, ignoring settled law and replacing it with judicial fiction.
The Great Inversion: People Denied While Invaders Protected
The real tragedy lies in the daily reality for the People: agencies strip children from homes without due process; courts deny basic rights and trials by jury. And yet those who do not belong to the compact are granted hearings and protections. That’s the inversion.
The Judicial Role: Declare, Not Invent
Chief Justice John Marshall reminded us, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” The Court has no authority to invent new categories of protected persons or rewrite the limits of executive power.
Jurisdiction Violated, the People Ignored
In this very case, as Justice Alito pointed out, the Supreme Court acted without jurisdiction. The lower court had not ruled, and the Fifth Circuit had not yet spoken. Yet the Court intervened. It did so for foreign parties, while refusing even to acknowledge the lawful notices and grievances filed by the People.
Habeas Corpus: A Forgotten Protection Revived?
Habeas corpus is the oldest and strongest protection against unlawful detention. It commands the government to bring the person forth and justify the detention before a court. If the Court is now reviving this principle, then it must begin with the governed, not those who unlawfully enter.
The Door Is Open – The People Must Walk Through It
If the Court says no one can be deported without review, then it must follow that no citizen can be held, punished, or deprived of their rights without lawful process, courts of record, and trial by jury.
This ruling, whether intended or not, can now serve as the turning point if the People claim it and demand consistency.
Conclusion: Let Judgment Begin at the Top
This isn’t a petition. It’s not partisan. It’s a lawful demand. The People granted the Court its authority. And if the Court defends unlawful entrants but not the governed, then it stands in dishonor.
The precedent is set. The People are watching. And the correction has already begun.