Latest news with #InsurrectionActof1807
Economic Times
13-08-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment
AP As President Donald Trump pushes the bounds of military activity on domestic soil, a 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 overlwith 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. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Regulatory gray area makes investing in LVMH, BP tough For Indian retail How IDBI banker landed plush Delhi properties in Amtek's INR33k crore skimming As 50% US tariff looms, 6 key steps that can safeguard Indian economy Jane Street blow pushes Indian quants to ancient Greek idea to thrive Stock Radar: Astra Microwave showing signs of bottoming out after 16% fall from highs; time to buy? F&O Radar | Deploy Broken Wing in Paytm to play stock's bullish outlook These 9 banking stocks can give more than 28% returns in 1 year, according to analysts Why 2025 Could Be The Astrological Turning Point We've Been Waiting For
Winnipeg Free Press
12-08-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
The nearly 150-year old law that Trump is testing with domestic troop deployment
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. ___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
CNN
25-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
US military expected to announce two new zones where service members can detain migrants on southern border, officials say
The US Departments of the Navy and Air Force are expected to announce the establishment of two additional military zones along the US southern border this week, three US officials told CNN. The zones, which are known as National Defense Areas, will be attached to Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, and Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, the officials said. The NDA around Joint Base San Antonio will include roughly 250 miles of the Rio Grande River, two of the officials added. The NDA near MCAS Yuma will extend over 100 miles along the border, the third official said. The new zones will bring the total count up to four, after the establishment of the Texas National Defense Area attached to Fort Bliss, Texas, in May, and the New Mexico National Defense Area attached to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, in April. 'The establishment of a second National Defense Area increases our operational reach and effectiveness in denying illegal activity along the southern border,' US Northern Command commander Gen. Gregory Guillot said after the establishment of the Texas National Defense Area. 'This is the second area in which Joint Task Force – Southern Border service members who are already detecting and monitoring through stationary positions and mobile patrols nearby can now temporarily detain trespassers until they are transferred to an appropriate law enforcement entity.' US troops are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activities by the Posse Comitatus Act. But the defense areas are treated as extensions of military installations, allowing service members to temporarily detain migrants who are trespassing before handing them off to law enforcement, conduct cursory searches of trespassers, and conduct crowd-control measures. Democratic lawmakers have criticized the defense areas as a way to side-step the act. Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Senates Armed Services Committee, said last month that the NDAs 'evade the long-standing protections of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing military forces to act as de facto border police, detaining migrants until they can be transferred to Customs and Border Protection.' 'In the Administration's telling, this approach permits military involvement in immigration control without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807,' Reed said. 'This is both unprecedented and a legal fiction. Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico also raised concerns to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth last month that the Trump administration is 'bypassing due process for individuals who either intentionally or unintentionally enter this newly restricted area.' Service members began directly detaining migrants in June. The Department of Justice only just got its first convictions related to trespassing in the NDAs this month. According to the Justice Department, two individuals pleaded guilty to charges including trespassing into the New Mexico National Defense Area. In both cases, the individuals were apprehended by Border Patrol agents. Dozens of national security charges against migrants were dropped by a judge in New Mexico earlier this month after they found little evidence that the migrants knew about the defense areas. The establishment of the new defense areas comes as over 4,000 National Guard troops and roughly 700 active duty Marines are currently mobilized in the Los Angeles area, in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.
The Hill
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Michigan Dem to introduce bill limiting presidential power to deploy troops on US soil
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) is set to introduce legislation next week that would make it illegal for President Trump to deploy active duty service forces to a state or territory without receiving a direct request from the state or territory's governor. The Stop Trump's Abuse of Power Act, revealed first to The Hill, comes after the Trump administration deployed hundreds of Marines and over 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles earlier this month amid unrest over the president's immigration agenda. 'President Trump has shown a disturbing pattern of disregard for the Constitution and due process. This month, he made it harder for local law enforcement to do their jobs in California by unlawfully deploying our military on U.S. soil — further escalating tension and violence,' Stevens said in a statement. 'We must stand up to Donald Trump's chaos and destruction, which is why I am introducing this legislation to limit his powers and make sure he cannot deploy troops on U.S. soil for his political gain. We are a nation of laws and it's about time the President begins to follow them.' According to Stevens's office, the legislation would add the language into the Insurrection Act of 1807 and only apply to duties connected to peaceful demonstrations. Trump faced fierce backlash from Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles. The California governor has maintained that the president's move to federalize soldiers without consulting him was illegal and asked the courts for an emergency order to block the deployment. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, initially ruled in California's favor, but the emergency injunction was overturned by the 9th Circuit on June 13. The three-judge panel then unanimously extended its pause in an unsigned, 38-page decision released Thursday night. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote. Trump called the ruling a 'big win' on Friday, while Newsom said in a post on X that 'the fight doesn't end here.'
Newsweek
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Trump's Military Crackdown on Los Angeles Was Unconstitutional
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. What unfolded in Los Angeles this month wasn't about restoring order. It was a calculated power play—testing the outer limits of executive authority and showcasing just how far President Donald Trump is willing to go in his second term. Federal judges have begun to rebuke his authoritarian actions. But courts alone aren't enough. Protests began on June 6 as grassroots responses to a surge in aggressive ICE raids across Southern California. Students, clergy, and immigrant advocates led calls for dignity, due process, and an end to mass detentions. On June 14, the movement swelled into the "No Kings" protests—a nationwide day of action timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and Trump's birthday. Tens of thousands flooded downtown Los Angeles to reject authoritarianism and the militarization of civic life. Interfaith leaders prayed. Students marched. Families carried signs. According to both LAPD and journalists on the ground, a small group of individuals unaffiliated with organizers later clashed with police barricades. Law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and baton charges, resulting in injuries to medics, journalists, and at least one protester now at the center of an LAPD use-of-force investigation. Still, the overwhelming majority remained peaceful. As Vanity Fair reported, 98 percent of the city was unaffected—protests were largely confined to a few blocks downtown. Even before the June 14 "No Kings" demonstrations, President Trump had already ordered the deployment of more than 4,000 National Guard troops and nearly 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles. The decision, made over the objections of state and local officials, defied constitutional norms. The sight of uniformed soldiers patrolling immigrant neighborhoods under federally imposed curfews was not just legally dubious—it echoed the tactics of authoritarian regimes. Trump's supporters cited the Insurrection Act of 1807, which permits the president to use domestic military forces during instances of insurrection or if local law enforcement is unable or unwilling to act. But as a federal court confirmed, nothing happening in Los Angeles meets that standard. The city remained under the control of its mayor and police department. There was no breakdown in law enforcement, and Governor Gavin Newsom made no request for federal intervention. Nevertheless, the White House invoked the act—without issuing the formal proclamation of unrest required by statute—and sent in soldiers. This is not law enforcement. It's authoritarian theater. "Trump's militarization of the already tense situation in Los Angeles is unprecedented," wrote Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former judge advocate and professor at Southwestern Law School. "Instead of protecting protestors, Trump federalized the National Guard this past weekend without Newsom's support, which risks squashing First Amendment-protected protests... thereby throwing gasoline on an already volatile situation." U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a temporary restraining order halting the federalization of California's National Guard and ordered that command of it be returned to the state. But within hours, a Ninth Circuit panel issued an emergency stay, allowing the federal deployment to continue pending appeal. The hearing is expected to resume this week. US Customs and Border Protection agents disperse protester in front of the Federal Building during ongoing demonstrations in response to federal immigration operations in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. US Customs and Border Protection agents disperse protester in front of the Federal Building during ongoing demonstrations in response to federal immigration operations in downtown Los Angeles on June 12, 2025. RONALDO SCHEMIDT / AFP/Getty Images California officials pledged to keep fighting. Governor Newsom wrote on X, "The military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets." Meanwhile, ICE activity continues to surge. Recent raids have targeted schools, job sites, hotels, and even places of worship. These operations, while controversial, are not indicative of a breakdown in order. The response they sparked—rallies, vigils, walkouts—has remained largely nonviolent. Citing isolated incidents of unrest to justify a military crackdown across a city as large as Los Angeles, as Trump's supporters have done, is both legally indefensible and dangerously misleading. As Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern noted, Judge Breyer's ruling clarified that "a handful of individuals toppling a Waymo or lighting up fireworks does not in fact strip thousands of peaceful protesters of their First Amendment rights." This case, Stern notes, is not just a fight over legal statutes—it's a fight over truth. Rather than meeting dissent with dialogue or reform, the Trump administration chose curfews, soldiers, and a deliberate rebranding of protest as rebellion. We've seen this playbook before—during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests—but today, the implications are more dire. The militarization of civic life is not just an American problem—it's a textbook marker of democratic backsliding in any society. Democracies don't collapse in a single night. They erode slowly, often through the normalization of exceptional measures. Troops on the streets. Judges overruled. Political opponents smeared as traitors. That dystopian trajectory is now underway. In Los Angeles, federal agents have detained clergy and journalists. Drones monitor protest zones. And even elected officials have been pushed out of the conversation. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), after being physically removed from a Department of Homeland Security press briefing for asking about the raids, remarked: "I'm OK. But if they can do that to me, a United States are they doing to a lot of folks out there when the cameras are not on?" He added: "What we've seen here should not be normalized." The threat isn't just to Los Angeles. It's to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the democratic norms that separate the United States from the regimes it claims to oppose. When the White House invokes emergency powers to suppress dissent, it sets a global precedent. Authoritarian governments take note. Domestic democratic erosion accelerates. We cannot simply wait on the courts to clean this up. They may. But law alone cannot preserve democracy. That responsibility lies with all of us—with journalists who expose abuse, with attorneys who challenge overreach, and with ordinary citizens who refuse to be intimidated. As Judge Breyer said, the president is not a king. The military does not belong on Main Street. Protest is not rebellion. Dissent is not a crime. The choice before Americans is clear: continue down this road—or rise, together, and say: enough. Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer, law professor, and frequent contributor to The Toronto Star. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
