ReportWire

Tag: Posse Comitatus Act

  • Insurrection Act, plenary power, martial law and more expla

    [ad_1]

    When asked whether President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act, Vice President JD Vance said Trump is “looking at all his options.”

    The decision would allow Trump to deploy the U.S. military domestically for law enforcement purposes without congressional authorization and over the objections of state governors. 

    Vance’s Oct. 12 comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” was just one of many in recent months about Trump’s ambitions to send the National Guard to Democratic cities such as Portland and Chicago.

    But the legal terms being tossed around —  Insurrection Act, plenary authority, martial law, Posse Comitatus Act — might not be familiar to everyone. These terms defy simple definitions after decades of interpretation by the courts. 

    Here, we explain.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    What is the Insurrection Act?

    This 1807 law allows the U.S. president to deploy federal military personnel domestically to suppress rebellion and enforce civilian law.

    Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends another U.S. law that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement. A president can invoke the law after determining that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the federal government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the law says. In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops to enforce U.S. laws or stop a rebellion.

    The law is broadly written and doesn’t define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that the president has exclusive power to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the law.

    Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, previously told PolitiFact the law provides “limited authority” for the president to use the military to respond to “genuine emergencies — a breakdown in regular operational law when things are really falling apart.”

    The Insurrection Act has been formally invoked around 30 times in the U.S. since 1808, including when southern governors refused to integrate schools in the 1950s and ’60s and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of Rodney King, a Black man.

    What is martial law?

    People sometimes conflate martial law with the Insurrection Act. Martial law typically refers to imposing military law on civilians, while the Insurrection Act uses the military to impose civilian law. Martial law is more stringent and has fewer protections than civilian law, experts said.

    The Supreme Court wrote in a 1946 ruling that the term martial law “carries no precise meaning,” and that it wasn’t defined in the Constitution or in an act of Congress. Legal experts told PolitiFact that, because of this, it isn’t clear whether the U.S. president has a legal path to declaring martial law in the way that it’s commonly understood.

    Still, it has been declared in the past. The U.S. imposed martial law in Hawaii after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law in certain parts of the country during the Civil War.

    The Supreme Court held in 1866 that martial law could be imposed only if civilian courts weren’t functioning.

    The court “more or less found that martial law could only be declared in an active war zone,” Chris Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, told PolitiFact. “The circumstances within which presidents have invoked martial law and that the Supreme Court has understood martial law are incredibly narrow. It would require an active hostility on U.S. territory that prevents civilian legal proceedings from occurring.”

    Trump, who has shown a willingness to challenge constitutional precedent, has continued to muse about using military powers against civilians. Trump told top U.S. military commanders Sept. 30 that the military could be used against the “enemy within” and suggested that some U.S. cities could be used as military “training grounds.”

    What is plenary authority?

    “Plenary authority” is defined by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School as “power that is wide-ranging, broadly construed, and often limitless for all practical purposes.”

    The term made headlines when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller started to say that Trump has “plenary authority” to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. cities in an Oct. 6 CNN interview. Miller abruptly stopped talking and CNN said the disruption was from a technical glitch. But social media users said Miller froze because he mentioned plenary authority.

    When the show returned, Miller finished his answer, saying he was “making the point that under federal law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has the authority anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient to federalize the National Guard to carry out a mission necessary for public safety.”

    Although the president has broad powers under the Constitution, like issuing pardons for federal crimes, he doesn’t have limitless power. The U.S. government is divided into three branches — legislative, executive and judicial — in order to have checks and balances.

    Title 10 of the U.S. code outlines the role of the country’s armed forces and constrains what the military is allowed to do and what orders the president can lawfully issue.

    It doesn’t include terms like “plenary authority” or “plenary power.” Instead, it says that when the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” and the U.S. faces a foreign invasion, a rebellion, or danger of rebellion, the president “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state.”  

    A judge in Oregon has twice blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland; a federal appeals court also blocked the administration from deploying the guard to Chicago, saying troops can remain federalized for now but cannot be deployed.

    Trump officials say the guard is needed to protect federal ICE officers and federal facilities. Trump previously cited section 12406 of Title 10 when he called for National Guard troops to be sent to Los Angeles during immigration protests in June. A federal judge ruled in September the deployment violated the law. The administration is appealing.

    What is the Posse Comitatus Act?

    The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prevents the use of the military as a domestic police force on U.S. soil, with exceptions for the Insurrection Act.

    The phrase “posse comitatus” refers to a group of people called upon by a county sheriff to maintain peace and suppress lawlessness. Think of Western movie depictions of posses of townspeople gathering to catch fugitives. “The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus,” the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive nonprofit policy institute, wrote in 2021.

    As the Posse Comitatus Act has been interpreted by the courts, civilian law-enforcement officials cannot make “direct active use” of military personnel, including using federal military forces, over their citizens to “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory authority,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

    The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to the National Guard when it is under state authority and the command of a governor; the law’s restrictions apply when the National Guard is federalized by the president. This means the National Guard generally cannot conduct arrests, searches or seizures unless there is an exception, such as the Insurrection Act.

    The only National Guard exception is the District of Columbia’s, which is solely under federal control. 

    What is the National Guard?

    The National Guard is a state-based military force with certain federal responsibilities. The guard often responds to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and civil unrest, and can support U.S. military operations overseas.

    Over 430,000 National Guard members serve in units in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The National Guard typically operates as a part-time reserve force that can be mobilized for active duty by governors. The guard also helps train foreign allies in over 100 countries under the State Partnership Program

    A president in some cases can federalize and take control of a state’s National Guard over the objection of governors for domestic missions and to serve in wars overseas, but it rarely happens without governors’ consent. When the National Guard is federalized, its troops are subject to the same restrictions as federal troops.

    The National Guard has been federally mobilized in the U.S. several times, including in response to the 2020 protests over the murder of George Floyd; the 1992 Los Angeles riots; and civil unrest following the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. 

    The Ohio National Guard’s 1970 deployment to anti-war protests at Kent State University resulted in troops shooting students, killing four people and injuring nine others.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump deployment of military troops to Los Angeles was illegal, judge rules in blistering opinion

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s deployment of U.S. military troops to Los Angeles during immigration raids earlier this year was illegal.

    U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found the deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which limited the use of the military for law enforcement purposes. He stayed his ruling to give the administration a chance to appeal.

    “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into service in other cities across the country … thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” Breyer wrote.

    The ruling could have implications beyond Los Angeles.

    Trump, who sent roughly 5,000 Marines and National Guard troops to L.A. in June in a move that was opposed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, issued an executive order declaring a public safety emergency in D.C. The order invoked Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act that places the Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control.

    In June, Breyer ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of California National Guard members against the state’s wishes.

    In a 36-page decision, Breyer wrote that Trump’s actions “were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

    But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals paused that court order, allowing the troops to remain in Los Angeles while the case plays out in federal court. The appellate court found the president had broad, though not “unreviewable,” authority to deploy the military in American cities.

    In his Tuesday ruling Breyer added: “The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Judge rules Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles violated federal law

    [ad_1]

    Washington — A federal court in California ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration violated federal law when it deployed members of the National Guard and active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles earlier this summer in response to protests against immigration enforcement operations.

    In a 52-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that the president and his administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 1878 law that prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Breyer blocked the Trump administration from deploying or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops in the state, for civilian law enforcement.

    His decision restricts the use of service members to engage in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures and traffic and crowd control.

    Breyer’s ruling came after he held a three-day trial in the case brought by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in June. Newsom, a Democrat, sued in response to Mr. Trump’s decision to deploy members of California’s National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests against immigration enforcement operations taking place in the area.

    The judge granted temporary relief to California officials in June that required the Trump administration not to deploy the California National Guard in Los Angeles and return control to Newsom. But a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit found it likely that Mr. Trump lawfully federalized the California National Guard under a different law, Title 10.

    Those earlier proceedings did not involve the Posse Comitatus Act. Breyer held the trial on the merits of Newsom’s arguments that the president violated that 147-year-old law last month.

    The judge’s ruling

    The judge wrote in his ruling that the evidence put forth at the trial established that the Trump administration “systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act,” Breyer wrote.

    While the Pentagon withdrew roughly the 700 U.S. Marines who had been sent to Los Angeles, Breyer noted that there are still 300 National Guard members stationed there nearly three months after they were first mobilized.

    “Moreover, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country — including Oakland and San Francisco, here in the Northern District of California — thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” Breyer wrote.

    The judge said that the Trump administration intentionally initiated the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to establish a military presence there and enforce federal law. He called that conduct a “serious violation” of federal law prohibiting the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

    “In fact, these violations were part of a top-down, systemic effort by Defendants to use military troops to execute various sectors of federal law (the drug laws and the immigration laws at least) across hundreds of miles and over the course of several months — and counting,” Breyer wrote.

    Breyer rejected the administration’s argument that the president’s constitutional powers allow him to override the restrictions in the Posse Comitatus Act.

    “Under this ‘constitutional exception,’ as Defendants call it, the President has inherent constitutional authority to protect federal property, federal personnel, and federal functions, so any actions that can be construed as such ‘protection’ are lawful in spite of the Posse Comitatus Act,” he wrote. “This assertion is not grounded in the history of the Act, Supreme Court jurisprudence on executive authority, or common sense.”

    Attorneys for California had sought an injunction that blocked National Guard forces from participating in and protecting federal agents during immigration enforcement operations, and Breyer agreed to grant their request.

    The judge wrote that while there is “no question that federal personnel should be able to perform their jobs without fearing for their safety,” the Trump administration cannot “use this as a hook to send military troops alongside federal agents wherever they go.”

    Since the 9th Circuit allowed the Trump administration to keep the National Guard in California, the president has moved to deploy troops to Washington, D.C. Mr. Trump has also teased sending the National Guard to other major cities throughout the country in what he casts as a looming crackdown against illegal immigration, violent crime and civil unrest.

    As of Monday, there are over 2,200 National Guard members in Washington, D.C., with over half of those troops sent by Republican governors throughout the country.

    Full interview: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem

    Full Interview: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker

    Teens surprise math world with Pythagorean Theorem trigonometry proof | 60 Minutes

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What federal laws could President Trump use to send troops to US cities?

    [ad_1]

    What federal laws could President Trump use to send troops to US cities?

    Updated: 3:24 PM EDT Aug 26, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    President Donald Trump indicated late last week that Chicago could be the next U.S. city targeted for a federal troop deployment, mirroring similar actions already taken in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.On Monday, Trump doubled down on the potential of sending the U.S. military to Chicago, though he stopped short of making any guarantees.”They need help. We may wait. We may or may not, we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has been working on plans for some time to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, possibly as early as September.The Trump administration has cited high levels of crime and lack of immigration enforcement as reasons for deploying federal troops. However, officials from D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have pushed back against those claims and voiced strong opposition to Trump’s actions.“The guard is not needed,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NBC News. “This is not the role of our military. The brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities.”Sending federal troops to Chicago would represent a significant escalation beyond the Trump administration’s earlier deployments in Los Angeles and D.C., pushing the limits of executive authority and inviting greater legal scrutiny. It could also lay the groundwork for Trump to send troops to other U.S. cities.Here’s a closer look at the federal laws at play and the legal arguments the Trump administration may use to uphold its deployment of federal troops to cities like Chicago.Title 10, Section 12406When considering the legal justifications for future troop deployments to cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, it’s best to begin with the Trump administration’s past actions.Washington, D.C., was the most recent place targeted, but its unique status as the capital means it’s unlikely to serve as a legal precedent for a nationwide rollout.Los Angeles, on the other hand, may offer a better roadmap.On June 7, Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his administration’s immigration policies. Shortly after, the number of Guard troops was increased to 4,100, plus approximately 700 Marines were also sent to the state.In a memo announcing the deployment, Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which states that the president can federalize National Guard units to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion or enforce federal law.Video below: President Trump considers deploying armed National Guard to cities amid criticismAccording to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, it was the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.California subsequently sued Trump, arguing that the deployment of federal troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic law.The Trump administration has maintained that federal troops were not engaged in law enforcement, but were instead deployed to protect federal immigration personnel and property.A federal judge initially ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, stating that Trump must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the state. However, a week later, an appeals court overturned the ruling.The lawsuit went back to court earlier this month, but a new ruling has not been made.Looking toward Chicago, Baltimore and New York, Trump could attempt to invoke Section 12406 again, using claims of high crime rates or lack of cooperation with federal officials in immigration enforcement as justification. But, like California, the move would certainly be met with legal action.Insurrection Act of 1807Another route the Trump administration could take is to invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807.The 19th-century law serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, giving the president the power to use the U.S. military to carry out domestic law enforcement duties.Like Section 12406 of Title 10, the Insurrection Act requires certain conditions to be met to justify its use, such as suppressing an insurrection, quelling domestic violence or enforcing civil rights. However, it is widely viewed as a more extreme measure, especially when used without a state’s consent.Additionally, Section 12406 only gives the president control of the National Guard, while the Insurrection Act extends to the entire armed forces. The act also authorizes those forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, including detaining civilians and controlling crowds. Section 12406 does not.According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Insurrection Act has only been used 30 times in American history. Most recently, it was used in 1992, at the request of California’s governor, to respond to the Los Angeles riots. The last time it was used against the state’s wishes was during the 1950s and 1960s to enforce school desegregation and to protect civil rights marches.Trump has never officially invoked the Insurrection Act, though he has repeatedly threatened to do so. “If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,” Trump said in June, regarding the situation in Los Angeles. “We’ll see … If we didn’t get involved right now, Los Angeles would be burning.”Some legal experts have questioned whether Trump’s past actions have already crossed the threshold, including his deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles, which isn’t explicitly protected by Section 12406, but does fall under the Insurrection Act’s powers.Ultimately, if Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or New York, it would almost assuredly be challenged in court.However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, ruled that the president has sole discretion to determine if conditions are met to invoke the Insurrection Act. It’s a judgment that courts have historically been reluctant to contest.

    President Donald Trump indicated late last week that Chicago could be the next U.S. city targeted for a federal troop deployment, mirroring similar actions already taken in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

    On Monday, Trump doubled down on the potential of sending the U.S. military to Chicago, though he stopped short of making any guarantees.

    “They need help. We may wait. We may or may not, we may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

    The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the Trump administration has been working on plans for some time to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, possibly as early as September.

    The Trump administration has cited high levels of crime and lack of immigration enforcement as reasons for deploying federal troops. However, officials from D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have pushed back against those claims and voiced strong opposition to Trump’s actions.

    “The guard is not needed,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told NBC News. “This is not the role of our military. The brave men and women who signed up to serve our country did not sign up to occupy American cities.”

    Sending federal troops to Chicago would represent a significant escalation beyond the Trump administration’s earlier deployments in Los Angeles and D.C., pushing the limits of executive authority and inviting greater legal scrutiny. It could also lay the groundwork for Trump to send troops to other U.S. cities.

    Here’s a closer look at the federal laws at play and the legal arguments the Trump administration may use to uphold its deployment of federal troops to cities like Chicago.

    Title 10, Section 12406

    When considering the legal justifications for future troop deployments to cities like Chicago, Baltimore and New York, it’s best to begin with the Trump administration’s past actions.

    Washington, D.C., was the most recent place targeted, but its unique status as the capital means it’s unlikely to serve as a legal precedent for a nationwide rollout.

    Los Angeles, on the other hand, may offer a better roadmap.

    On June 7, Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests over his administration’s immigration policies. Shortly after, the number of Guard troops was increased to 4,100, plus approximately 700 Marines were also sent to the state.

    In a memo announcing the deployment, Trump invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which states that the president can federalize National Guard units to repel an invasion, suppress a rebellion or enforce federal law.

    Video below: President Trump considers deploying armed National Guard to cities amid criticism

    According to Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, it was the first time since 1965 that a president activated a state’s National Guard without the governor’s request.

    California subsequently sued Trump, arguing that the deployment of federal troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military to enforce domestic law.

    The Trump administration has maintained that federal troops were not engaged in law enforcement, but were instead deployed to protect federal immigration personnel and property.

    A federal judge initially ruled in favor of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, stating that Trump must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the state. However, a week later, an appeals court overturned the ruling.

    The lawsuit went back to court earlier this month, but a new ruling has not been made.

    Looking toward Chicago, Baltimore and New York, Trump could attempt to invoke Section 12406 again, using claims of high crime rates or lack of cooperation with federal officials in immigration enforcement as justification. But, like California, the move would certainly be met with legal action.

    Insurrection Act of 1807

    Another route the Trump administration could take is to invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act of 1807.

    The 19th-century law serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, giving the president the power to use the U.S. military to carry out domestic law enforcement duties.

    Like Section 12406 of Title 10, the Insurrection Act requires certain conditions to be met to justify its use, such as suppressing an insurrection, quelling domestic violence or enforcing civil rights. However, it is widely viewed as a more extreme measure, especially when used without a state’s consent.

    Additionally, Section 12406 only gives the president control of the National Guard, while the Insurrection Act extends to the entire armed forces. The act also authorizes those forces to engage in domestic law enforcement, including detaining civilians and controlling crowds. Section 12406 does not.

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Insurrection Act has only been used 30 times in American history. Most recently, it was used in 1992, at the request of California’s governor, to respond to the Los Angeles riots. The last time it was used against the state’s wishes was during the 1950s and 1960s to enforce school desegregation and to protect civil rights marches.

    Trump has never officially invoked the Insurrection Act, though he has repeatedly threatened to do so.

    “If there’s an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,” Trump said in June, regarding the situation in Los Angeles. “We’ll see … If we didn’t get involved right now, Los Angeles would be burning.”

    Some legal experts have questioned whether Trump’s past actions have already crossed the threshold, including his deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles, which isn’t explicitly protected by Section 12406, but does fall under the Insurrection Act’s powers.

    Ultimately, if Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to cities like Chicago, Baltimore, or New York, it would almost assuredly be challenged in court.

    However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court, in the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, ruled that the president has sole discretion to determine if conditions are met to invoke the Insurrection Act. It’s a judgment that courts have historically been reluctant to contest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link