Latest news with #PosseComitatusAct
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California hopes law from bloody era of U.S. history can rein in Trump's use of troops
California's fight to rein in President Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles hinges on a 19th century law with a a blood-soaked origin and a name that seems pulled from a Spaghetti Western. In a pivotal ruling this week, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered the federal government to hand over evidence to state authorities seeking to prove that the actions of troops in Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws. 'How President Trump has used and is using the federalized National Guard and the Marines since deploying them at the beginning of June is plainly relevant to the Posse Comitatus Act,' Breyer wrote Wednesday in his order authorizing 'limited expedited discovery.' The Trump administration objected to the move and has already once gotten a sweeping Breyer ruling that would've limited White House authority over the troops overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This time, the Northern District of California judge made clear he would 'only allow discovery as to the Posse Comitatus Act' — signaling what could be the state's last stand battle to prevent Marines and National Guard forces from participating in immigration enforcement. The Posse Comitatus Act dates back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the American government faced violent resistance to its efforts to rebuild Southern state governments and enforce federal law following the abolition of slavery. The text of the law itself is slight, its relevant section barely more than 60 words. Yet when it was enacted, it served as the legal epitaph to Reconstruction — and a preface to Jim Crow. 'It has these very ignoble beginnings,' said Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University and one of the country's foremost experts on the statute. Before the Civil War, the U.S. military was kept small, in part to avoid the kinds of abuses American colonists suffered under the British. Authorities back then could marshal a crew of civilians, called a posse comitatus, to assist them, as sometimes happened in California during the Gold Rush. States also had militias that could be called up by the president to pad out the army in wartime. But law enforcement by the U.S. military was rare and deeply unpopular. Historians have said the use of soldiers to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — which saw escaped slaves hunted down and returned to the South — helped spark the Civil War. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has used constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to justify using troops to round up immigrants. Experts said leaders from the antebellum South demanded similar enforcement of the law. 'The South was all for posse comitatus when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act,' said Josh Dubbert, a historian at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library in Ohio. But by the time Congress sent federal troops to begin Reconstruction in earnest in 1867, the landscape was very different. After white rioters razed Black neighborhoods in Memphis and mobs of ex-Confederate soldiers massacred Black demonstrators in New Orleans in the spring of 1866, 'most of the South [was] turned into military districts,' said Jacob Calhoun, a professor of American history at Wabash College and an expert on Reconstruction. 'Most scholars, let alone the American public, do not understand the scale of racial violence during Reconstruction,' Calhoun said. 'They only send these troops in after unimaginable levels of violence.' At the polls, Black voters were met by white gangs seeking to prevent them from casting ballots. 'For most of American history, the idea of an American army intervening in elections is a nightmare,' Calhoun said. '[Posse Comitatus] is reemphasizing this longstanding belief but for more nefarious purposes.' The Posse Comitatus language was tucked into an appropriations bill by Southern Democrats after their party won control of Congress in the election of 1876 — 'possibly the most violent election in American history,' Calhoun said. Historians say white lawmakers in the post-war South sought to enshrine their ability to keep Black men from voting by barring federal forces from bolstering the local militias that protected them. 'Once they're in control of Congress, they want to cut the appropriations for the army,' Dubbert said. 'They attach this amendment to [their appropriations bill] which is the Posse Comitatus Act.' The bill won support from some Republicans, who resented the use of federalized troops to put down the Railroad Strike of 1877 — the first national labor strike in the U.S. 'It is a moment in which white Northern congressmen surrender the South back to ex-Confederates,' Calhoun said. 'With the Posse Comitatus Act, racial violence becomes the norm.' Yet the statute itself largely vanished from memory, little used for most of the next century. 'The Posse Comitatus Act was forgotten for about 75 years, from after Reconstruction to basically the 1950s, when a defense lawyer made a challenge to a piece of evidence that the Army had obtained,' Nevitt said. 'The case law is [all] after World War II.' Those cases have largely turned on troops who arrest, search, seize or detain civilians — 'the normal thing the LAPD does on a daily basis,' Nevitt said. The courts have stood by the bedrock principle that military personnel should not be used to enforce the law against civilians, he said, except in times of rebellion or other extreme scenarios. 'Our nation was forged in large part because the British military was violating the civil rights of colonists in New England,' Nevitt said. 'I really can't think of a more important question than the military's ability to use force against Americans.' Yet, the law is full of loopholes, scholars said — notably in relation to use of the National Guard. Department of Justice has argued Posse Comitatus does not apply to the military's current actions in Southern California — and even if it did, the soldiers deployed there haven't violated the law. It also claimed the 9th Circuit decision endorsing Trump's authority to call up troops rendered the Posse Comitatus issue moot. Some experts feel California's case is strong. 'You literally have military roaming the streets of Los Angeles with civilian law enforcement,' said Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, 'That's exactly what the [act] is designed to prevent.' But Nevitt was more doubtful. Even if Breyer ultimately rules that Trump's troops are violating the law and grants the injunction California is seeking, the 9th Circuit will almost certainly strike it down, he said. 'It's going to be an uphill battle,' the attorney said. 'And if they find a way to get to the Supreme Court, I see the Supreme Court siding with Trump as well.'
Atlantic
a day ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Keeping Politics Out of the Military
Our security is dependent on those who are willing to fight our foreign enemies and die for their country. We honor them and their families because their bravery and courage protect our democracy. We respect our military precisely because its role in defending the nation means that the military does not get involved in politics. If we allow the president to politicize the military, that will undermine the trust of the American people in our national security. The mobilization of the National Guard in California has raised concerns about whether the reason for its deployment was based on real threats to law and order, or on political differences between the governor of California and the president of the United States. To protect the role of the military, the U.S. has historically made clear in its laws that federal troops should not be used for civilian law enforcement. In 1878, President Rutherford Hayes signed the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from doing the work of law-enforcement officers. Even the statutes that authorize the president to activate the National Guard make clear that troops are to be limited to responding to 'invasions' or 'rebellions.' The U.S. is not facing either an invasion or a rebellion. Respect for the military's role is crucial for our democracy. That is why the law is designed to ensure that our armed forces are not politicized or misused. This rule-of-law tenet is the fundamental difference between a free society and an autocracy. Tyrants use the military as a pawn to solidify power, put down protests, and arrest opponents. Russian President Vladimir Putin has incurred as many as a million casualties among the soldiers he sent into Ukraine for his dictatorial goal of restoring the supposed greatness of the Soviet Union. Putin has found an ally in another ruthless autocrat, North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, who has sent forces to help Russia's fight in Ukraine. In China, the primary purpose of the military is to protect those in power. In each case, the tyrant demands—for his own survival—that the loyalty of the military is solely to him, not to the nation, let alone the people. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait Doing a dictator's bidding is not how the military works in America. Our service members swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution, not to the president. They follow the orders of the president as their commander in chief, but may do so only if those orders are legal and pursuant to the Constitution. Their job demands training, skill, and courage, certainly. The job also requires the capacity to make decisions based solely on the goal of accomplishing a national-security mission, not appeasing political leaders. As secretary of defense, I was a party to the kinds of tough decisions our military has to make. That judgment must not be damaged by those who seek to use it for political purposes. At the Pentagon, I bore the vital responsibility of deciding on the deployment of our men and women in uniform, and whether to put them in harm's way. The concern that some of those deployed would not return from a mission was always uppermost in my mind. Whenever we lost a serving soldier, I would receive a report and see their name. On those occasions, I personally wrote a condolence note to their family. The list of fallen warriors was also sent to the White House so that the president could do the same and convey the nation's gratitude to the family for the sacrifice that their loved one had made. Admiral Bill McRaven, the head of Special Operations Command at the time, made clear to me that every military judgment must be based on doing what's right to accomplish the mission. As the director of the CIA, I was in charge of the covert operation to hunt down the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden at his secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. McRaven was the Afghanistan-based operational commander of the raid, in which two teams of Navy SEALs flew 150 miles at night. As they were about to land, residual heat from the day caused one of their helicopters to stall out and make a hard landing that left its tail stuck on one of the compound's walls. I called McRaven to ask what was going on. He was decisive in his response. 'I have called in a backup helicopter, and we will proceed with the mission breaching through the walls,' he said. 'The mission will go on.' I gave my approval. The mission was successful: The man who had masterminded the 9/11 attacks was finally eliminated. The kind of split-second judgment that McRaven showed is what our military is trained to do. In the recent success of the U.S. forces that were deployed to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the military did a great job of planning and execution. America has the strongest military force on Earth, but all of the technologically advanced weapons, planes, ships, and equipment would not be worth much without the skill and training of our service men and women. At outposts throughout the world, they are our front line of defense. They are our national security. To maintain that security demands that we protect and respect the constitutional purpose they serve. If a president deliberately misuses the military for partisan reasons, he is weakening America's safety. Leadership of a military devoted to defending our nation is an honored role that goes back to George Washington and the creation of the Continental Army 250 years ago. During that long history, Americans have learned that presidential parades do not define their military; what does is their respect for the military's mission of protecting national security. Trust in the military is indivisible from trust in the Constitution. Both must remain inviolable.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Trump administration expands military's role at the border to the southern tip of Texas
The Department of Defense is expanding a militarised zone along the southern US border where troops are authorised to detain people who enter illegally for possible federal prosecution on charges of trespassing in a national defence area. The Air Force announced Monday the annexation of a serpentine 250-mile (400-kilometre) stretch of the border in Texas amid a buildup of military forces under President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border. A Defense Department official said the Navy also has been instructed to establish a new national defence area at the border. The official didn't provide further details. The newly designated national defence area on land and water along the Rio Grande spans two Texas counties and runs alongside cities including Brownsville and McAllen. It will be treated as an extension of Joint Base San Antonio. The Air Force said it's prepared to install warning signs immediately against entry to the area. The military strategy was pioneered in April along a 170-mile (275-kilometre) stretch of the border in New Mexico and expanded to a swath of western Texas in May. Hunters, hikers and humanitarian aid groups fear that they will no longer have access. In the newest national defence area, military responsibilities include 'enhanced detection and monitoring' and 'temporarily detaining trespassers until they are transferred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities,' the Air Force said in a statement. At least three people have been directly detained by troops in New Mexico for processing by Border Patrol. More than 1,400 immigrants have been charged with incursions into the national defence areas, a criminal misdemeanour punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Court challenges to the charges have been met with mixed results. The militarised border zone is a counterpoint to the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests over Trump's stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The troop deployments are testing the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from conducting civilian law enforcement on US soil. Arrests at the border for illegal entry have decreased dramatically this year.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Trump admin expands military's role at border to the southern tip of Texas
The Department of Defense is expanding a militarised zone along the southern US border where troops are authorised to detain people who enter illegally for possible federal prosecution on charges of trespassing in a national defence area. The Air Force announced Monday the annexation of a serpentine 250-mile (400-kilometre) stretch of the border in Texas amid a buildup of military forces under President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border. A Defense Department official said the Navy also has been instructed to establish a new national defence area at the border. The official didn't provide further details. The newly designated national defence area on land and water along the Rio Grande spans two Texas counties and runs alongside cities including Brownsville and McAllen. It will be treated as an extension of Joint Base San Antonio. The Air Force said it's prepared to install warning signs immediately against entry to the area. The military strategy was pioneered in April along a 170-mile (275-kilometre) stretch of the border in New Mexico and expanded to a swath of western Texas in May. Hunters, hikers and humanitarian aid groups fear that they will no longer have access. In the newest national defence area, military responsibilities include "enhanced detection and monitoring" and "temporarily detaining trespassers until they are transferred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities," the Air Force said in a statement. At least three people have been directly detained by troops in New Mexico for processing by Border Patrol. More than 1,400 immigrants have been charged with incursions into the national defence areas, a criminal misdemeanour punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Court challenges to the charges have been met with mixed results. The militarised border zone is a counterpoint to the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests over Trump's stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The troop deployments are testing the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from conducting civilian law enforcement on US soil. Arrests at the border for illegal entry have decreased dramatically this year. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Trump administration expands military's role at the border to the southern tip of Texas
The Department of Defense is expanding a militarised zone along the southern U.S. border where troops are authorized to detain people who enter illegally for possible federal prosecution on charges of trespassing in a national defense area. The Air Force announced Wednesday (June 25, 2025) the annexation of a serpentine 400 km stretch of the border in Texas amid a buildup of military forces under President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the border. A Defense Department official said Thursday that the Navy also has been instructed to establish a new national defense area at the border. The official didn't provide further details. The newly designated national defense area on land and water along the Rio Grande spans two Texas counties and runs alongside cities including Brownsville and McAllen. It will be treated as an extension of Joint Base San Antonio. The Air Force said it's prepared to install warning signs immediately against entry to the area. The military strategy was pioneered in April along a 275 km stretch of the border in New Mexico and expanded to a swath of western Texas in May. Hunters, hikers and humanitarian aid groups fear that they will no longer have access. In the newest national defense area, military responsibilities include 'enhanced detection and monitoring' and "temporarily detaining trespassers until they are transferred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities,' the Air Force said in a statement. At least three people have been directly detained by troops in New Mexico for processing by Border Patrol. More than 1,400 immigrants have been charged with incursions into the national defense areas, a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Court challenges to the charges have been met with mixed results. The militarised border zone is a counterpoint to the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles following protests over Trump's stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws. The troop deployments are testing the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil. Arrests at the border for illegal entry have decreased dramatically this year.
