Analysis Summary:

The article is factually accurate, reporting on Noem's mischaracterization of habeas corpus. Multiple sources confirm the core claim that Noem incorrectly defined habeas corpus. The article exhibits minimal bias, presenting the information in a straightforward manner.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** Noem incorrectly defines habeas corpus as the President’s right to deport people.
  • Verification Source #1: Supports this claim, stating Noem defined habeas corpus as "right the president has to … remove people".
  • Verification Source #2: Supports this claim, stating Noem incorrectly describes it as a right that the President of the United States has to deport people.
  • Verification Source #4: Supports this claim, stating Noem incorrectly described it as a right that the President of the United States has to deport people.
• Claim:** The right allows people to legally challenge their detentions by the government and is guaranteed in the Constitution.
• Fail to cover:* The provided sources do not explicitly define habeas corpus. However, this is a widely accepted definition. (Internal Knowledge)

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #1: "Noem defends potentially suspending habeas corpus, defines it as 'right the president has to … remove people'."
• Verification Source #2: "...habeas corpus - one of the most fundamental rights we have - is, Noem incorrectly describes it as a right that the President of the United States has to deport..."
• Verification Source #4: "...definition of “habeas corpus,” Noem incorrectly described it as a right that the President of the United States has to deport people."
• All sources agree that Noem's definition of habeas corpus is incorrect.
• Verification Source #3 and Verification Source #5 are not directly relevant to the primary claim.