The Supreme Court is about to rule on whether President Donald Trump can use National Guard troops against Americans protesting his policies, in what could be one of the most consequential cases of the Trump era. The case involves a small group of protesters outside an immigration facility in Broadview, Illinois, where a federal judge ruled that Trump's attempt to deploy National Guard members was illegal.
Trump had asked the Supreme Court to greenlight his use of troops, but the justices have signaled skepticism over many of his legal arguments. In October, they asked for additional briefing on a question that neither party raised to the justices, and two lower courts had already ruled against Trump's actions. The case is now likely to be decided after the completion of briefing on Monday, November 17.
The Supreme Court's October 29 order suggests that the justices may delay a showdown on whether and when Trump can use military forces against Americans until a future case. However, even if they rule against him, this would merely put off the question of when Trump is allowed to deploy troops until another date.
The dispute centers on the meaning of the term "regular forces" in federal law. Marty Lederman, a Georgetown law professor, has argued that this phrase refers to the standing military forces of the Armed Services within the Department of Defense, and not to civilian law enforcement officials. If this interpretation is correct, then Trump may only deploy regular Army or Marine forces against Americans protesting his policies, unless he can demonstrate that he is unable to enforce domestic law using these units.
However, there are other laws that govern the use of regular military forces within the United States, including the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. These laws prohibit the use of military force against American citizens without express authorization from Congress. The Justice Department has long interpreted the Insurrection Act narrowly, and it is unclear whether Trump would be able to deploy regular forces under this law.
A legal showdown over the meaning of these laws could become necessary if Lederman's interpretation of the amended Dick Act is accepted by the Supreme Court. In that scenario, Trump may claim authority under the Insurrection Act and deploy regular forces against American cities, which could have significant implications for civil liberties and the use of military power within the United States.
Trump had asked the Supreme Court to greenlight his use of troops, but the justices have signaled skepticism over many of his legal arguments. In October, they asked for additional briefing on a question that neither party raised to the justices, and two lower courts had already ruled against Trump's actions. The case is now likely to be decided after the completion of briefing on Monday, November 17.
The Supreme Court's October 29 order suggests that the justices may delay a showdown on whether and when Trump can use military forces against Americans until a future case. However, even if they rule against him, this would merely put off the question of when Trump is allowed to deploy troops until another date.
The dispute centers on the meaning of the term "regular forces" in federal law. Marty Lederman, a Georgetown law professor, has argued that this phrase refers to the standing military forces of the Armed Services within the Department of Defense, and not to civilian law enforcement officials. If this interpretation is correct, then Trump may only deploy regular Army or Marine forces against Americans protesting his policies, unless he can demonstrate that he is unable to enforce domestic law using these units.
However, there are other laws that govern the use of regular military forces within the United States, including the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. These laws prohibit the use of military force against American citizens without express authorization from Congress. The Justice Department has long interpreted the Insurrection Act narrowly, and it is unclear whether Trump would be able to deploy regular forces under this law.
A legal showdown over the meaning of these laws could become necessary if Lederman's interpretation of the amended Dick Act is accepted by the Supreme Court. In that scenario, Trump may claim authority under the Insurrection Act and deploy regular forces against American cities, which could have significant implications for civil liberties and the use of military power within the United States.
. If the Supremes side with Marty Lederman's interpretation, it means Trump can only use regular Army or Marine forces against protesters. But what if he tries to use them elsewhere? Like, what if he wants to deploy troops in LA or NYC to quell protests? That could get really messy 
. And what about the Posse Comitatus Act? How does that play into this? It's like a whole new can of worms 
. I just hope they don't let it escalate into something bigger than it needs to be 
.
I mean, come on, this guy Trump, always trying to flex his military muscles like a WWE wrestler 
. Like, what's next? Deploying National Guard troops to quell a protest outside his own hair salon 
?! On a serious note tho, it's kinda concerning that the Supreme Court is even having to weigh in on this. It's like they're trying to keep him from getting too carried away with his authoritarian tendencies 
. But honestly, can you imagine if he actually deployed troops against Americans protesting his policies? That would be like something out of a dystopian novel 
. I just hope the justices have some sense and rule that it's all a big no-go 
The whole thing seems pretty unclear to me... so Trump wants to use National Guard troops on protesters, but is that even legal? 
So yeah, I guess the Supreme Court needs to figure out what all these laws mean and when Trump is allowed to pull the trigger... it's gonna be a wild ride 
about this case! It's like, so crucial for understanding how far President Trump can take his "law and order" stance 
.
. The Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act are still in play, and it's unclear whether Trump would be able to deploy regular forces under those laws either 
.
. That's a slippery slope, imo 
.
. I think what we really need is some clarity on these laws and how they apply to situations like this 
.
and could lead to some major civil liberties issues 
. And what if Trump just decides to use his executive authority to bypass all these laws? That's when things start to get really scary 
.
.
. Like, can you imagine troops marching on a city to quash protests? It's crazy. Trump's been trying to get around laws that are meant to protect citizens' rights, and it's not sitting well with many people. I'm all about civility, but if the courts have to step in and say 'hold up, Donald', I think we're all gonna breathe a sigh of relief 
. The way this case is shaping up, it sounds like it could be one of those turning points where the court says 'enough is enough' and puts limits on presidential power 
. The idea that Trump might be able to deploy regular military forces against Americans protesting his policies is pretty wild 
. It feels like we should be able to figure out a way to enforce laws without resorting to military force, you know? 
. And even if Trump manages to deploy troops under the Insurrection Act, which is already super murky, this could set a major precedent for future administrations to do the same... not cool