DOJ Claims Trump Can Deploy Troops to U.S. Cities Unchecked by SCOTUS
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently submitted a significant filing regarding President Donald Trump’s authority to deploy National Guard troops in U.S. cities. The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued in front of the Supreme Court that Trump has extensive, unreviewable powers to utilize these troops. This action aligns with Trump’s ongoing efforts to militarize urban areas and incorporate military personnel into everyday policing.
Context of the Supreme Court Filing
This filing was prompted by the Supreme Court’s request for additional briefings on the legality of Trump’s proposed military deployment in Chicago. Earlier this year, Trump sought to federalize 300 Illinois National Guard members to assist federal agents in immigration enforcement. This initiative was part of a broader agenda focused on mass deportations.
Legal Challenges and Court Responses
- A district court had previously issued a temporary halt on Trump’s deployment in Chicago.
- The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld this decision.
- In response, Trump filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
In an unexpected move, the Supreme Court requested more information about the legal framework governing this situation, specifically regarding 10 U.S.C. 12406, a law that allows the president to take control of National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The court wanted clarification on whether the term “regular forces” pertains specifically to the conventional military.
Arguments Presented
In his filing, Sauer contended that “regular forces” does not refer solely to standing military forces but includes civilian components that are unable to enforce laws effectively in current situations. He asserted that local Guard units possess better community ties and knowledge, making them more suitable for maintaining order than traditional military personnel.
However, this argument raises questions, especially since Trump aimed to deploy Texas National Guard troops to Chicago without resorting to federal forces. Sauer emphasized that the deployment of the National Guard is a core power of the president as Commander in Chief, claiming it is not subject to judicial review.
Conversely, Illinois challenged this assertion, affirming that “regular forces” should be interpreted as the full-time military. The state’s position suggests that Trump lacked the authority to federalize the Guard since he did not employ traditional military forces in Chicago prior to this action. They argued that the criteria for federalizing the National Guard were not satisfied.
Implications and Broader Context
Legal experts indicate that the Supreme Court’s acceptance of Illinois’ arguments could undermine Trump’s deployments, not only in Chicago but also in Portland, Oregon, where a district court had already blocked a similar deployment. In Portland, Trump had also not made an effort to utilize traditional military forces before proposing the National Guard deployment.
Public and Legal Reactions
Various groups have voiced their opposition to Trump’s troop deployments. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights organizations argued that such actions are contrary to American ideals and could infringe upon First Amendment rights. Additionally, numerous former federal judges supported the rejection of Trump’s appeal to maintain the integrity of judicial authority over presidential actions.
The Supreme Court has set a deadline of November 17 for replies to be filed by both Trump and Illinois, delaying a decision on the matter. Legal observers anticipate that the court will carefully consider the implications of this case regarding presidential military authority and its intersection with local governance.
