The Supreme Court is poised to rule on whether President Donald Trump can use troops against Americans in response to protests. The case, Trump v. Illinois, centers around Trump's attempt to deploy National Guard troops to an immigration facility in Broadview, Illinois, to suppress a small protest that has ranged in size from a few dozen people to about 200.
The Court signaled skepticism of many of Trump's legal arguments in an October 29 order and asked for additional briefing on a question that neither party raised to the justices. The first round of those new briefs were filed on November 10, and the Court is likely to rule on the case after briefing completes on Monday, November 17.
The upshot is that Trump's attempt to send troops to Broadview remains blocked by lower court orders, at least for now. However, a majority of the justices appear to have found evidence persuasive enough to set aside Trump's arguments and instead demand additional briefing on the meaning of the term "regular forces" under the amended Dick Act.
If Lederman's argument is correct, it would mean that Trump may only deploy regular Army or Marine forces against Americans protesting his policies. This raises concerns about the potential for military force to be used in response to protests. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act provide alternative frameworks for the use of military force, but their interpretation is subject to judicial review.
The implications of a ruling in favor of Lederman's argument are far-reaching. It would suggest that Trump lacks the authority to use National Guard members against protesters on US soil, even if they have been charged with crimes or engaging in violent behavior. However, it is also possible that the justices will interpret the Insurrection Act more broadly, paving the way for a new legal fight over Trump's claim to deploy regular forces against Americans.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision on this case will have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, as well as the limits of presidential authority in response to domestic unrest.
The Court signaled skepticism of many of Trump's legal arguments in an October 29 order and asked for additional briefing on a question that neither party raised to the justices. The first round of those new briefs were filed on November 10, and the Court is likely to rule on the case after briefing completes on Monday, November 17.
The upshot is that Trump's attempt to send troops to Broadview remains blocked by lower court orders, at least for now. However, a majority of the justices appear to have found evidence persuasive enough to set aside Trump's arguments and instead demand additional briefing on the meaning of the term "regular forces" under the amended Dick Act.
If Lederman's argument is correct, it would mean that Trump may only deploy regular Army or Marine forces against Americans protesting his policies. This raises concerns about the potential for military force to be used in response to protests. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act provide alternative frameworks for the use of military force, but their interpretation is subject to judicial review.
The implications of a ruling in favor of Lederman's argument are far-reaching. It would suggest that Trump lacks the authority to use National Guard members against protesters on US soil, even if they have been charged with crimes or engaging in violent behavior. However, it is also possible that the justices will interpret the Insurrection Act more broadly, paving the way for a new legal fight over Trump's claim to deploy regular forces against Americans.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision on this case will have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, as well as the limits of presidential authority in response to domestic unrest.
President Trump thinkin' he can just deploy troops against Americans protestin'? That's like somethin' outta a bad movie 
. I mean, what's next? He gonna send in the military to break up student protests or somethin'? 
. I hope the Supreme Court sees sense and blocks this from happenin'.
. Can't we just have some clear guidelines on how to handle protests without resortin' to military force?
.
.
It's not like he's never done something questionable before... 
...i guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out
The recent developments in the Trump v. Illinois case are a stark reminder of the constitutional checks and balances at play in the United States. It's fascinating to see how the Supreme Court is grappling with the nuances of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, and how this will likely shape the boundaries of presidential authority in times of domestic unrest 
.
. If the court rules that he can't use regular forces, it's about time someone put a stop to this nonsense 
.
. But at the same time, if they go down the other route and let Trump do whatever he wants, it's like, how much power does he really have? 
.
. If the SC rules in favor of Trump, it could set a super bad precedent and undermine Congressional authority 
. But if they side with Lederman... well, that'd be a big deal too 
.
that'd be a major no-no 
and how trump's using them 
guess we'll just have to wait till monday 
. We've seen this movie before and it's always "temporary delay" or "just a minor setback". 
The fact is, if Trump thinks he can just deploy the National Guard to quell a peaceful protest, then what's next? Using special forces to break up Black Lives Matter protests or sending in the Army Rangers to disperse Occupy Wall Street protests? 
. The Supreme Court needs to draw a line in the sand and say that's not how it works, period. 
... But at the same time, I trust the system to get it right. The judges are smart and they'll make a fair decision. Fingers crossed 
. As the Court reviews the meaning of "regular forces," they're essentially being asked to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable uses of military power in response to domestic unrest 
. The implications are far-reaching, with significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress 
.
. If the SC decides that Trump can't use troops on Americans, it'll be a major win for Congress and all that. But if they let him off the hook... I don't know, man, it's just not right 
. Anyway, fingers crossed for a fair ruling, I guess 
. But if they interpret the Insurrection Act more broadly... ugh, my anxiety levels just skyrocketed 
. We need to keep an eye on this one