Introduction to the Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials. A decision could come at any time. And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.
Background of the Case
Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there. The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.” Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.
Claims of Executive Power
That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives. Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing. Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.
Concerns of Legal Experts and Democratic Officials
When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.
Newsom, Bonta Warn of Dangers
That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm. “Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”
Brief Filed by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead. “On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.
Conservatives’ Perspective
Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials. “Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”
Historical Precedents
He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.
Legal Battle and Congressional Powers
The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.” Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”
Lower Courts’ Rulings
Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs. Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.” In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”
Appeals Courts’ Decisions
But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions. A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed. But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.
Trump’s Solicitor General Argument
U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal. “On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.” He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials will have significant implications for the balance of power between the federal government and states. The court’s ruling will determine whether the president can unilaterally deploy the National Guard to enforce federal law, potentially transforming the role of the military in American society.
FAQs
- What is the main issue in the Supreme Court case?
The main issue is whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials. - What is the Trump administration’s argument?
The Trump administration argues that the president has the exclusive discretion to deploy the National Guard to enforce federal law and protect federal personnel and property. - What is the concern of legal experts and Democratic officials?
They are concerned that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration would set a terrible precedent, allowing the president to send troops into cities based on contrived or government-provoked facts, and potentially leading to more grossly tyrannical conduct. - What are the historical precedents cited by conservatives?
Conservatives cite examples of presidents using their authority to desegregate southern schools and protect civil rights protesters in the 1950s and 1960s. - What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision?
The decision will have significant implications for the balance of power between the federal government and states, and could potentially transform the role of the military in American society.
