superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
This needs a thread of its own - we've been talking about it on other threads but with new evidence of plans on deploy to Chicago in the coming weeks this is become more and more compelling. Trump deployed National Guard to LA under the guise of immigration enforcement where it was challenged in court and ultimately enjoined to a very limited status - but that took weeks to accomplish. Then he used special authorities relating to DC's unique legal status to mobilize National Guard to the nation's capital based on alleged out of control crime (DC's crime rates are high but certainly not the highest in the nation and have been trending down).
There is now substantial smoke that Chicago is next - and it's no coincidence that these are blue cities (for example, Memphis, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Little Rock have higher rates of violent crime than DC and Chicago). And while the LA deployment was somewhat limited compared to DC's, it is true that DC's status gives Trump quite a bit of freedom to operate . . . but Chicago will be another matter, and both local and state political leadership will be vocal and aggressive.
abc7chicago.com
It's not supposed to be easy for a president to deploy US military troops (including national guard) for operations in the homeland without a clear emergency. In cases of insurrection or substantial unrest that could be brewing into insurrection , the president can invoke the Insurrection Act to quell unrest - but that's a very specific scenario and doesn't include domestic law enforcement. In fact, there is specific federal law (the Posse Comitatus Act) that prohibits the use of federal armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) for domestic law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution. In the LA trial over whether the deployment violated the PC Act, Trump's DOJ argued that they were not engaging in domestic law enforcement but where only supporting the federal ICE mission and protecting federal property (there were some protests around federal property). In DC however, they are clearly engaging in domestic law enforcement and the plans for Chicago seem much more like DC than LA.
The National Guard, however, has it's own set of authorities that allow for either state deployment (under state leadership and ordered by a governor) or full federalization under the president for certain missions, not domestic law enforcement. Or there's a hybrid of the two under 32 USC 502(f) called "Title 32 status" that gives SecDef authority to deploy out of state guard to a state, but again this question of what their mission is remains central.
A good read on all of this from 2020 when Trump deployed troops against the George Floyd protests in DC: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...power-call-out-national-guard-not-blank-check
Just last year (2024), Kristi Noem was outspoken against suggestions that Biden could federalize the National Guard in Texas.
There is now substantial smoke that Chicago is next - and it's no coincidence that these are blue cities (for example, Memphis, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Little Rock have higher rates of violent crime than DC and Chicago). And while the LA deployment was somewhat limited compared to DC's, it is true that DC's status gives Trump quite a bit of freedom to operate . . . but Chicago will be another matter, and both local and state political leadership will be vocal and aggressive.
US official confirms Pentagon planning National Guard deployment in Chicago, Mayor Johnson responds
Mayor Brandon Johnson and other Illinois leaders spoke out Sunday as a U.S. official confirmed to ABC News the Pentagon is drafting plans for the potential use of National Guard troops in Chicago.
It's not supposed to be easy for a president to deploy US military troops (including national guard) for operations in the homeland without a clear emergency. In cases of insurrection or substantial unrest that could be brewing into insurrection , the president can invoke the Insurrection Act to quell unrest - but that's a very specific scenario and doesn't include domestic law enforcement. In fact, there is specific federal law (the Posse Comitatus Act) that prohibits the use of federal armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) for domestic law enforcement purposes unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution. In the LA trial over whether the deployment violated the PC Act, Trump's DOJ argued that they were not engaging in domestic law enforcement but where only supporting the federal ICE mission and protecting federal property (there were some protests around federal property). In DC however, they are clearly engaging in domestic law enforcement and the plans for Chicago seem much more like DC than LA.
The National Guard, however, has it's own set of authorities that allow for either state deployment (under state leadership and ordered by a governor) or full federalization under the president for certain missions, not domestic law enforcement. Or there's a hybrid of the two under 32 USC 502(f) called "Title 32 status" that gives SecDef authority to deploy out of state guard to a state, but again this question of what their mission is remains central.
A good read on all of this from 2020 when Trump deployed troops against the George Floyd protests in DC: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...power-call-out-national-guard-not-blank-check
Just last year (2024), Kristi Noem was outspoken against suggestions that Biden could federalize the National Guard in Texas.
Last edited:
