logo
The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment

The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment

Independenta day ago
As President Donald Trump pushes the bounds of military activity on domestic soil, a polarizing debate has emerged over a nearly 150-year old law that regulates when federal troops can intervene in state issues.
About 800 National Guard troops filed into Washington, D.C., on Tuesday after President Donald Trump said — without substantiation — that they were needed to reduce crime in the 'lawless' national capital. Thousands of miles away, a judge in California is hearing arguments about whether the president's recent decision to federalize Guard personnel in Los Angeles during protests against immigration raids violated federal law.
Trump has also created militarized zones along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of a major shift that has thrust the army into immigration enforcement like never before.
The cases in both California and Washington mainly hinge on Posse Comitatus Act, which passed in 1878 and largely prevents the military from enforcing domestic laws. Experts say that in both cases there are clear limitations to the law's enforcement.
Here is what to know about the law.
Posse Comitatus Act stops military from enforcing US law
The Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute that prevents the military from enforcing domestic law. It also prevents the military from investigating local crimes, overriding local law enforcement or compelling certain behavior.
Posse Comitatus can be bypassed by a congressional vote or in order to defend the Constitution. The Insurrection Act of 1807 can also trigger the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act and allows the president to deploy the military domestically in cases of invasion or rebellion.
There is an exception for the U.S. Coast Guard, which has some law enforcement responsibility. The military is also allowed to share intelligence and certain resources if there is an overlap with civilian law enforcement jurisdiction, according to the Library of Congress.
Law was enacted after Reconstruction era
The law was enacted in 1878 following the post-Civil War era known as Reconstruction. Pro-segregationist representatives in Congress wanted to keep the military from blocking the enforcement of Jim Crow laws that allowed racial segregation.
But the spirit of the law also has roots going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, when the founders of the United States were scarred by the British monarchy's absolute military control, said William C. Banks, a professor at the Syracuse University College of Law.
'We have a tradition in the United States, which is more a norm than a law, that we want law enforcement to be conducted by civilians, not the military,' Banks said.
That ethos — ingrained in National Guard personnel starting in basic training — becomes especially powerful in the case of the Posse Comitatus Act, because the law has hardly been tested before now, said Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center.
'There is no authoritative precedent on exactly where these lines are, and so that's why over the years the military's own interpretation has been so important,' Vladeck said.
Law applies to 'federalized' troops
The Posse Comitatus Act typically doesn't apply to the National Guard because members of the Guard report to the governor, not the federal government.
But when Guard personnel are 'federalized" they are bound by the act until they are returned to state control, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The state of California said in a federal lawsuit that the Trump administration violated the act when it deployed National Guard soldiers and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles following June protests over immigration raids.
The Trump administration has argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply because the president used a provision known as Title 10 to federalize the troops. It allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Attorneys for the federal government also argue that the troops are not enforcing domestic laws and are only acting to protect federal property and agents.
In Washington, by contrast, the president is already in charge of the National Guard and can legally deploy troops for 30 days without congressional approval.
Vladeck said that both deployments over the past three months suggest that the Trump administration 'appears to be trying to dance around the Posse Comitatus Act" rather than disregard it altogether.
"There is a lot in the water about the Trump administration being lawless. What is striking is actually how much the administration is trying to wrap itself in the law,' Vladeck said.
Law depends on executive branch policing itself
Beyond the legal exceptions written into the law, there is a practical question of how to enforce it, said Joseph Nunn, counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program.
Because the Posse Comitatus Act is a criminal statute, not a civil one, the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for prosecution in criminal court, Nunn said.
'It's premised on the executive branch policing itself,' he said. That leaves unclear legal standing for whether a state government like California's has a right to sue in civil court in the first place.
The ruling in the California case will likely be a narrow interpretation based on the circumstances of the Guard's deployment in Los Angeles, Vladeck said. But he said it could still dictate how the administration uses the Guard in other cities like Chicago and New York, where Trump has threatened to federalize troops next.
___
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US and Russia suggest ‘West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine'
US and Russia suggest ‘West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine'

The Independent

time28 minutes ago

  • The Independent

US and Russia suggest ‘West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine'

The U.S. and Russia are set to suggest a 'West Bank-style' occupation of Ukraine as a way of ending the war, according to The London Times. Under the proposed plans, Russia would have both economic and military control of the occupied parts of Ukraine, utilizing its own governing body, mimicking Israel's control of Palestinian territory taken from Jordan during the 1967 conflict. The suggestion was put forward during discussions between President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterparts, a source with insight into the U.S. National Security Council told the paper. Witkoff, who also serves as the White House's Middle East envoy, reportedly backs the suggestion, which the U.S. believes will solve the issue of the Ukrainian constitution prohibiting giving up territory without organizing a referendum. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected any notion of ceding territory, the new occupation proposal may lead to a truce following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022. According to the proposal, Ukraine's borders would remain officially unchanged, similar to the borders of the West Bank, even as Israel controls the territory. 'It'll just be like Israel occupies the West Bank,' the source told The Times. 'With a governor, with an economic situation that goes into Russia, not Ukraine. But it'll still be Ukraine, because … Ukraine will never give up its sovereignty. But the reality is it'll be occupied territory and the model is Palestine,' the source added to the paper. The proposal will almost certainly be part of discussions between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin set for Friday in Alaska. On Wednesday, Zelensky met with European leaders and Trump ahead of the Russia summit. Zelensky is not set to attend Friday's summit in person. Trump reaffirmed during the Wednesday meeting that territorial issues can only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine, according to French president Emmanuel Macron. The French leader also said Trump wants a ceasefire plan to be finalized during his Friday meeting. 'Any issue which deals with the territorial integrity of Ukraine cannot be discussed just like that, without looking at our constitution and the will of our people,' Zelensky told the press on Friday. 'As to our principles, as to our territorial integrity, in the end, will be decided on the level of leaders. Without Ukraine (at the table), it's impossible to achieve,' Zelensky added. Zelensky said that a ceasefire should be reached and then security guarantees. He also said that sanctions against Russia should be imposed if no ceasefire deal is reached in Alaska. As details of any potential ceasefire are being discussed, the U.S. believes that the 'West Bank-style' deal is the reality of war and the refusal of other nations to directly fight Russia, according to The Times. In May, U.S. Senior Director for Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka, told Politico that 'The Trump administration lives in the real world.' 'We recognize the reality on the ground,' he added. 'No. 1, that's the beginning because we're not utopianists and we're not human engineers. We're not some kind of pie-in-the-sky believers in utopia.' He went on to say that 'We recognize the reality on the ground and we have one priority above all else, whether it's the Middle East or whether it's Ukraine. It's to stop the bloodshed. Everything else comes after the bloodshed has been halted.' The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal. The occupation isn't recognized by the U.S., and it's only partially recognized by Russia. Last September, the United Nations ordered Israel to end the occupation by a vote of 124 to 14, with 43 countries abstaining. The resolution stated that Israel must adhere to international law within 12 months, pull back its military, end all settlement efforts, evacuate all settlers from the occupied territories, and remove parts of the wall separating the West Bank. Israel has ignored the resolution and voted against the measure, as did the U.S. Israel has faced widespread condemnation over its occupation and the settlement efforts. More than 150 have been established in recent years. Citizens of Israel who live in the West Bank must adhere to Israeli law, while Palestinians are subject to martial law, and they're unable to vote in Israeli national elections.

Melania Trump threatens to sue Hunter Biden for $1bn over Epstein comments
Melania Trump threatens to sue Hunter Biden for $1bn over Epstein comments

Telegraph

time29 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Melania Trump threatens to sue Hunter Biden for $1bn over Epstein comments

Melania Trump has threatened to sue Hunter Biden for $1 billion unless he retracts claims about the First Lady's alleged connections to Jeffrey Epstein, according to a report. Lawyers for Mrs Trump sent Mr Biden a letter accusing the former president's son of making 'false, defamatory, disparaging, and inflammatory statements' about her, Fox News reported. The letter is said to have demanded Mr Biden immediately remove the comments and issue an apology or face legal action. The letter, sent on August 6 by the First Lady's attorney, Alejandro Brito, to Mr Biden's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, referred to comments the former president's son made in an interview. Speaking to Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan, Mr Biden claimed that the paedophile financier introduced Mrs Trump to her future husband. The former president's son, who has done a string of recent interviews speaking about his father's legacy and his own struggles with drug addiction, said it was 'beyond a doubt' that Mr Trump and Epstein were 'very close friends'. 'They spent an enormous time together. According to [Trump's] biographer, Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania,' Mr Biden said. 'That's first lady and the president met. Yeah, according to Michael Wolff.' Mr Wolff, an author who was given extraordinary access to the White House during Mr Trump's first term, has written four books about the president. He made the claims about the First Lady's links to the disgraced financier in an episode of The Daily Beast podcast that aired on July 26. The news outlet also published an article on Mr Wolff's claim, but retracted it and issued an apology after Melania Trump's attorney contacted the publication. 'The Beast received a letter from First Lady Melania Trump's attorney challenging the headline and framing of the article. After reviewing the matter, the Beast has taken down the article and apologises for any confusion or misunderstanding,' the publication wrote. Mrs Trump's letter accused Mr Biden of further disseminating the claims made by Mr Wolff and causing the First Lady to suffer 'overwhelming financial and reputational harm' as a result. 'These false, disparaging, defamatory, and inflammatory statements are extremely salacious and have been widely disseminated throughout various digital mediums,' the letter read. It also claimed the timing of Mr Biden's comments was malicious. It comes as the Trump administration has come under intense scrutiny for its failure to release the Epstein Files. The president is facing intense scrutiny about his personal connections to Epstein after the FBI and Department of Justice concluded last month that the wealthy sex offender died by suicide and did not possess a 'client list'. The ruling contradicted a conspiracy theory widely maintained amongst Maga supporters that Epstein was murdered by powerful associates to cover up for their crimes. 'The timing of this video is evident and underscores the actual malice behind the decision to publish it given the plain falsity of the statements,' the letter read. It demanded that Mr Biden 'immediately issue a full and fair retraction of the video' and 'immediately issue an apology for the false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading, and inflammatory statements about Mrs Trump'. Mr Biden was given until 5pm on August 7 to comply with the letter. A source close to the matter told Fox News that he failed to meet the deadline.

Alaska summit will reveal extent Trump borrows from Putin playbook
Alaska summit will reveal extent Trump borrows from Putin playbook

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

Alaska summit will reveal extent Trump borrows from Putin playbook

Trump's military takeover of the nation's capital, sending National Guard troops to Washington's streets and seizing control of the DC municipal police department, could have come straight from the Putin playbook. It matters little that there is no crime wave 'emergency' as Trump says. In fact, Washington's crime rate has fallen in recent years with violent crime overall down 26% compared with this time a year ago. It matters even less that in order to deploy the National Guard, Trump has invoked an obscure section of the 1973 DC Home Rule Act, which allows the president to take control of local law enforcement in the district for a period of one month. READ MORE: Healthcare in Gaza facing 'catastrophe' amid food shortages, doctor warns Back on January 6, 2021, Trump might have been relying on an incited mob of supporters to seize the Capitol building, but today, in an open show of power in his second term, he can use his presidential powers at will, it seems, to send out an unmistakeable message of his administration's willingness and capacity to wield power. At every turn, Trump is expanding his control in a way that poses a real threat to America's democracy. Just take the press as an example. As a report by the media watchdog the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) recently identified, there are three ways in which the Trump administration is chipping away at US press freedom: by limiting access to information, instituting new regulations and targeting journalists and newsrooms with lawsuits and investigations. Or to put this another way, you are rewarded for the 'right' coverage and vilified if it doesn't fit with Trump's thinking. As the CPJ also rightly points out, the fate of American democracy and journalists' ability to work without fear are intertwined. This threat to press freedom must then be seen as occurring in a larger context in which First Amendment rights more broadly are being eroded. Which takes me back to the meeting between Trump and Putin tomorrow. For while America admittedly might still be a long way off being the equivalent of Putin's authoritarian Russia, Trump so far is making a good go at showing he is working off the same political page as his Kremlin pal. What both leaders do domestically in political terms, of course, is one thing, but when it comes to imposing their will on another independent sovereign nation, that is something else again. The news that this will be a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska and that neither of the two leaders will be flanked by their advisers has only added to the disquiet that between them they will come to a tawdry deal that will then effectively be imposed on Ukraine. Trump as we know has form when it comes to striking ill-considered agreements with whoever gets into a room with him. It's also a reminder of how autocrats often work, for when the tanks, troops or mobs can't get them what they covet in the first instance, too often shady deals with each other become an alternative. READ MORE: Acclaimed Scottish screenwriter wears 'Palestine Action' T-shirt at Fringe As Edward Luce, US national editor of the Financial Times, wryly put it a few days ago: 'The ghosts of Munich, Yalta and other sordid bargains ought to be stalking Alaska.' For make no mistake, what happens in that room at the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson military facility in Anchorage tomorrow is a profoundly crucial moment not just for Ukraine, but for Europe and its future relations with the Trump administration and the US generally. If the intense diplomacy and virtual meetings between European leaders, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump are anything to go by, then it's evident that every party realises that what comes out of tomorrow's meeting could be a gamechanger with profound geopolitical consequences. It's no coincidence too that the meeting comes at precisely the moment when Moscow has upped the ante on eastern Ukraine's battlefields. There in the Donbas these past days, Russian forces have breached the frontline along a narrow corridor parallel to Dobropillia, a coal-mining town turned key logistical hub north of the stronghold of Pokrovsk that Moscow's troops have almost encircled. In short, grab as much territory as possible before any 'swapping of land', as Trump puts it, becomes part of the deal between him and Putin. That European countries are outraged that Zelenskyy will not be present in Alaska as any deal is cut is justified. In a worst possible scenario, Ukraine and its European allies could be left with a very stark choice. Either sign up to the deal and accept a rewriting of European security over their heads or reject it and risk Trump walking away from US military support for Ukraine. Speaking to the US-based Foreign Policy magazine, John Foreman, a former UK defence attache to Moscow and Kyiv, summed up the worst fears of many about the outcome. 'I worry that his (Trump's) shared authoritarian instincts with Putin, lack of clarity in his mind about his own position and wish to be seen as a big man deciding the fate of nations at the stroke of a Sharpie will lead to him agreeing to terms which are wholly unacceptable,' Foreman warned. For Putin, meanwhile, tomorrow's summit will mark his first visit to the US since 2015 and his first visit to the country since 2007 that has come outside of the context of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Should things go the way of the Russian leader, Trump would be giving away Ukrainian land that Putin could not win by force of arms. Few doubt that the Kremlin's man would relish the humiliation of European leaders who have insisted that nothing about Ukraine should be decided without Ukraine. Speaking earlier this week about the summit, Trump said it would be 'a feel-out meeting a little bit', adding that he would know within two minutes whether progress is possible. 'I may say 'lots of luck, keep fighting', or I may say 'we can make a deal',' Trump added. Only tomorrow will tell which of those outcomes win the day. To say that nerves will remain frayed until then would be an understatement. In fact, they could well be in tatters in its aftermath.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store