One of Donald Trump’s preferred tactics in his fight against crime and his bid to protect federal agents has been to deploy the National Guard as cover.
This worked in D.C., but Trump has been blocked by the judiciary, including at the Supreme Court, from doing so in other states.
After the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling to block Trump on this front, Justice Samuel Alito teed off on the six justices who formed the majority opinion.
When Trump tried to deploy Illinois and Texas National Guard troops in Chicago, he received immediate pushback.
At the same time, the president was also trying to deploy the Guard in Oregon.
In both cases, lower court judges blocked him. In the Oregon case, it was a judge who was appointed by Trump himself.
When the president appealed the rulings, U.S. District Court Judge April Perry extended the block in Illinois, stating, “The extension ensures the court receives well-reasoned arguments before making a final determination.”
The Supreme Court had previously allowed Trump to deploy in D.C., but that city is under federal purview, and I had warned people about reading too much into that decision, as it would have no bearing on the cases in other states.
It turned out that I was right, as the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the administration, with two of the three Trump justices, Kavanaugh and Barrett, siding with the liberals on the bench, as did Chief Justice John Roberts.
The court leaned into the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement, save for very few exceptions, such as an insurrection or a declared emergency.
The majority opinion, in part, ruled, “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Instead, he relies on inherent constitutional authority that, according to the Government, allows him to use the military to protect federal personnel and property.”
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch all dissented against the majority opinion, but Alito was the one who went nuclear on the other members of the court.
He stated, "Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted.”
Alito continued, "Under the Court’s interpretation, National Guard members could arrest and process aliens who are subject to deportation, but they would lack statutory authorization to perform purely protective functions. Our country has traditionally been wary of using soldiers as domestic police, but it has been comfortable with their use for purely protective purposes."
I understand his argument, but I also believe in states’ rights, so this is a tough one for me. All I know is that if a blue state sent its Guard to be deployed in Texas, I, along with every other Texan I know, would be furious. I will leave it at that.
