Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several deployments of the National Guard within the United States, often disregarding the objections of Democratic governors of the respective states.
These actions have ignited numerous legal disputes, raising questions about the extent of presidential authority to federalize troops and deploy them domestically.
In recent months, Trump has sent or tried to send National Guard troops to major cities led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, Chicago, and Memphis, Tennessee.
The president has justified these deployments by citing rising crime rates in these cities and the necessity to protect federal officials involved in immigration enforcement.
In his August 11 memorandum concerning the National Guard mobilization in Washington, D.C., Trump characterized the city as ‘under siege from violent crime,’ calling it a ‘point of national disgrace’ due to its high violent crime rate.
These deployment orders have led to a swirl of legal challenges. In Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago, the primary legal contention revolves around presidential authority to federalize National Guard troops, which are traditionally under state control—especially when governors have declined Trump’s requests for such deployments.
In Memphis, the legal conflicts are more complex, as some Tennessee officials support the deployment while others voice strong opposition, challenging Governor Bill Lee’s decision to carry out Trump’s plans.
In Washington, D.C., Trump exercises direct command over the National Guard, creating a legal situation where the main question is not about deploying local troops but about the extent to which he can bring in troops from other states.
The president has invoked several pieces of legal authority for these deployments.
While the U.S. Constitution does not expressly grant the president power to call troops into domestic service—this authority resides with Congress under Article I, Section 8—the Militia Act of 1792 provided an important legislative framework for such implications.
The Act allowed the president to call upon state militia forces during instances of foreign invasion or domestic insurrection. This basis allowed President George Washington to mobilize militia forces during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, setting a precedent for future military actions.
In a memorandum dated June 7, Trump cited 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which permits the president to call National Guard members into federal service under certain conditions, such as in response to rebellion or to enforce U.S. laws.
In ongoing court cases related to the deployments, federal judges have scrutinized whether current conditions in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago amount to a rebellion—allowing for federal intervention—and whether local law enforcement can manage law enforcement without the National Guard.
The Trump administration has pointed to past violent protests involving federal immigration officials to substantiate their claims for using Section 12406, while challengers argue that the administration has exaggerated the severity of protests to justify these troop deployments.
The situation in Chicago saw a U.S. district judge halt the deployment, concluding that it was not ‘called for’ as conditions did not meet the legal thresholds required for federal intervention. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit agreed with this analysis.
In both Los Angeles and Portland, district court judges issued temporary blocks on troop deployment, citing that ongoing protests did not rise to the level of rebellion and that local law enforcement was capable of managing the situation. However, these orders were paused by the 9th Circuit, establishing that courts must defer significantly to the president’s assertion that federalizing and deploying troops is necessary.
As the Trump administration has sought to validate its use of Section 12406, the Justice Department has contended that such justification isn’t obligatory.
The U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer further argued in a Supreme Court request about the Chicago deployment that the president alone holds the power to ascertain whether an exigency warranting federalization has arisen, referencing the 1827 case, Martin v. Mott.
Martin v. Mott addresses presidential authority when calling up militias during national emergencies.
In this case, militia member Jacob Mott contested President James Madison’s order that called the New York militia into service during the War of 1812, asserting that the president lacked authority to issue such an order.
The case concluded that the president’s decision to mobilize state militia cannot be contested, as articulated by the court which stated that the authority to determine whether an urgency exists lies exclusively with the president.
However, interpretations of this precedent vary today. The 7th Circuit emphasized that the context of Martin v. Mott underscores a distinct aim: to disallow subordinates from defying the president yet still affirms the potential for judicial review of the president’s deployment authority.
Contemporary debates surrounding the National Guard deployments have also involved discussions of the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878.
This law delineates the parameters within which U.S. military personnel may operate in civilian environments under presidential command.
Essentially, while Section 12406 allows for military deployment in specified situations, the Posse Comitatus Act restricts military action in domestic law enforcement roles, rooted in historical concerns about federal overreach.
The act arose from concerns about civil liberties after extensive military involvement during the Civil War and Reconstruction, leading to its current application during recent deployment disputes.
In a notable ruling regarding the Los Angeles deployment, a U.S. district judge ruled that the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by employing federalized National Guard troops for civil law enforcement tasks.
The court’s findings demonstrated that federal troops organized military-style operations, including establishing traffic blockades and engaging in crowd control activities.
Though this judgment aimed to impose limitations on the scope of the deployment, a 9th Circuit administrative stay has halted further legal consequences until a review of related orders is conducted.
Moreover, the Insurrection Act looms as a potential course of action for President Trump amid these ongoing disputes.
Similar to Section 12406, the Insurrection Act enables the president to federalize and dispatch National Guard troops to restore law and order.
Unique to this statute, however, is its allowance for deploying regular armed forces domestically and bypassing the limitations posed by the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Insurrection Act provides broader authority compared to Section 12406, granting the president latitude to act when enforcing laws is ‘impracticable,’ rather than strictly under conditions of rebellion or obstruction.
The statute effectively emphasizes the president’s judgment, enabling him to act swiftly during emergencies based on his interpretation of circumstances on the ground.
Legal experts consider the Insurrection Act significantly more favorable to presidential prerogatives.
It grants a wider scope of action without any requirements for congressional consultation or substantive judicial review.
Throughout American history, the Insurrection Act has been employed multiple times by presidents from both political parties.
Noteworthy uses include President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who enforced desegregation in the South, as well as President George H.W. Bush’s response to the riots in Los Angeles in 1992.
In discussions surrounding recent deployments, President Trump has hinted at the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act, should efforts to utilize other statutes fail.
During a press briefing on October 19, he noted his authority, emphasizing how various presidents have historically employed this act.
As tensions surrounding these legal battles continue to escalate, the future implications of Trump’s deployment decisions remain uncertain and increasingly pivotal in the ongoing discourse regarding federal versus state authority.
image source from：scotusblog
