5 ms·

Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scena

Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.

yareally 1y ago
And apparently Los Angeles https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigration-raids-protests-8f668f3fbfd2a8b1f1408db840e9864d https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigr...
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  A judge ruled that deployment illegal. It's now winding its way through the appeals process.
abeppu 1y ago
... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
  - abeppu 1y ago
    I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere. But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-lawsuit-924491849641549828c4f52a41d54e6b https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...
    - chrisco255 1y ago
      The President has been able to federalize the guard since 1792, see the Militia Act: https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" Pretty sure that doesn't apply in LA in 2025.
- chrisco255 1y ago
  There's exceptions to general rule, the national guard is ultimately a state-federal entity and the President can activate them to enforce federal law. Laws on this go all the way back to 1807. They've been federalized by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon without consent of the associated Governor.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. Legally, there are exceptions to that (primarily the Insurrection Act, though there are some deployments that are permitted within states on federal authority on other legal bases with tightly-constrained functions), and practically, the legal limits don't matter because response time off the courts is to slow for them to act as a meaningful brake. (E.g., the lawsuit filed the first court day after the order to mobilize the guard for LA just reached the trial stage this week.)

Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. DC is the only place the president has jurisdiction in this scenario.

yareally 1y ago

And apparently Los Angeles https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigration-raids-protests-8f668f3fbfd2a8b1f1408db840e9864d https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-los-angeles-immigr...

ceejayoz 1y ago
A judge ruled that deployment illegal. It's now winding its way through the appeals process.

abeppu 1y ago

... except this president federalized and deployed the national guard in California only earlier this summer, over the objections of the state's governor, so is that rule still a rule?

fc417fc802 1y ago
He was able to provide a justification, however thin, which he presumably can't in the case of St Louis. Not that I disagree with the general sentiment. He's only doing this as a political stunt and St Louis wouldn't serve that purpose as well even if he could somehow swing it legally.
- abeppu 1y ago
  I'm sure there are also federal buildings in St Louis; the justification from California works almost anywhere. But critically, the trial in which the legality of that action is considered is happening the week. Whether or not the action is judged to have been a constitutional violation ultimately doesn't matter; the administration did it, and even if the court rules against the administration, it will have been two months too slate. Effectively, the president has demonstrated he can federalize the national guard whether or not the governor consents for long enough to score whatever political/media points he's currently fixated on, and if the legal system stops him, he will have moved on to other issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-lawsuit-924491849641549828c4f52a41d54e6b https://apnews.com/article/california-trump-national-guard-l...
  - chrisco255 1y ago
    The President has been able to federalize the guard since 1792, see the Militia Act: https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/militia-act-of-1792 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe" Pretty sure that doesn't apply in LA in 2025.
chrisco255 1y ago
There's exceptions to general rule, the national guard is ultimately a state-federal entity and the President can activate them to enforce federal law. Laws on this go all the way back to 1807. They've been federalized by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon without consent of the associated Governor.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> Deployment of the National Guard within a state is at the discretion of that state's governor. Legally, there are exceptions to that (primarily the Insurrection Act, though there are some deployments that are permitted within states on federal authority on other legal bases with tightly-constrained functions), and practically, the legal limits don't matter because response time off the courts is to slow for them to act as a meaningful brake. (E.g., the lawsuit filed the first court day after the order to mobilize the guard for LA just reached the trial stage this week.)