class=”story”> Trump’s National Guard deployments face mounting legal pushback November 19, 20255:00 AM ET
A member of the National Guard stands watch on Beale Street in Memphis, Tenn. on Oct. 24. George Walker IV/AP hide caption
toggle caption George Walker IV/AP
Again and again, President Trump’s efforts to send National Guard troops to U.S. cities have been met with resistance in the courts.
In his second term, Trump has continued to push the boundaries of military involvement in domestic matters, whether it comes to addressing public safety, quelling protests or safeguarding federal buildings and personnel, including ICE agents.
In response, local and state Democratic leaders have forcefully pushed back and made strides in the courts, where judges have deemed the use of military force as unnecessary or unlawful. Some judges have also expressed wariness around having the military get involved in civilian affairs.
Sponsor Message
“This principle has been foundational to the safeguarding of our fundamental liberties under the Constitution,” U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut wrote in her ruling freezing Trump’s deployment to Portland, Ore. earlier this month.
National Guard deployments
Содержание статьи:
The latest court to push back was in Tennessee, where a judge temporarily blocked the state’s use of the Guard in Memphis. That deployment was ordered by the governor at the behest of Trump.
As the legal challenges mount, the Defense Department over the weekend ordered hundreds of troops in Chicago and Portland to return to their home states after federal courts stalled deployments, NPR previously reported.
Some legal and military experts view the recent events as minor setbacks for the Trump administration. But others see the court decisions as proof of checks and balances at work, at least to some degree.
“There’s a pretty common theme that deploying the military into U.S. cities is not something that can be done lawlessly,” said David Janovsky, a senior policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group. “It is a good sign that the courts are standing up and saying that.”
Breaking down the Memphis ruling
In Tennessee, a group of Democratic lawmakers and officials filed a lawsuit against Republican Gov. Bill Lee and others, challenging the deployment of the state’s National Guard.
Sponsor Message
The plaintiffs argued that Memphis did not face a “rebellion or invasion,” which was the criteria for sending the Guard under the state’s constitution. Unlike the governors of Illinois, Oregon and California, who have opposed Trump’s deployment of Guard forces, the governor of Tennessee approved and directed the deployment in Memphis.
Still, on Monday, Davidson County Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal sided with the plaintiffs. In her opinion, she wrote, “The power committed to the Governor as commander-in-chief of the Army and Militia is not unfettered.”
Benjamin R. Farley, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which was part of a coalition that provided legal representation to the plaintiffs, said Moskal’s ruling showed that the Tennessee governor does not have blanket authority to deploy troops.
National Guard deployments
In an encrypted group chat, National Guard members question Trump deployments
“It’s one more victory in a line of victories for the law against executive overreach, whether that’s the president or as is the case here, the governor of Tennessee,” he said.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NPR that the administration disagreed with the ruling. “This state court judge fundamentally misunderstood the law and is attempting to act as a policy-maker, not a judge,” she said in an email.
Now, it’s important to note that the pause on the deployment has not taken effect, as the chancellor gave the state a few days to appeal. If state officials choose to appeal, they may request that the Guard operations be allowed to continue until the appellate court reaches a decision. Lee’s office did not immediately comment.
Janovsky from the Project on Government Oversight said that’s one way the courts tend to fall short.
“That sort of misreads the stakes of the situation,” he said. “If it is presumptively illegal to have troops on the streets, it seems completely backwards to let the troops stay on the street until there’s a final determination.”
Sponsor Message
As federal courts block troop deployments, will SCOTUS have final say?
A Defense Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, told NPR that the holidays may have influenced the decision to withdraw out-of-state troops from Illinois and Oregon in the coming days.
But retired Maj. Gen. William Enyart, who led the Illinois National Guard from 2007 to 2012, believes the federal courts, which have repeatedly blocked the deployments in Chicago and Portland from moving forward, also played a role.
“This shows the relative strength of the system and of the founding fathers in designing that system, where we had a separation of powers as well as a balancing of powers,” he added.
National Guard deployments
Confused by the legal battles over troop deployments? Here’s what to know
The Trump administration is challenging the rulings that block the use of troops and in the case over the deployment in Chicago, the administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Some legal experts say it could have a ripple effect — to a degree — depending on how broadly the justices rule.
“The more broadly they construe their opinion, the more broad of an effect we’re going to see,” said Chris Mirasola, a national security law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
Even as debates over the mobilizations play out in various courts, Trump has suggested sending troops to about half a dozen other cities, and warned of invoking the Insurrection Act to pave the way.
Mirasola said there are limits to how much the courts can restrict the president’s use of the military, and ultimately the public serves as a stronger check on power.
“It’s always going to be public sentiment that I think is especially consequential,” he said.
