Man, doesn’t the deployment of ARNG soldiers on title 32 from TX into IL open a pandora’s box of state sovereignty issues? Can the Governor of TX deploy soldiers, essentially on state active duty (title 32) to IL against the wishes of the Governor of Illinois who is also CDR in Chief of the ILARNG?
It feels like an act of inter-state war, doesn't it?
Deploying non federalized Guardsman to a non consenting state will be a first. This assumes deployment under title 32. Direct assault on state sovereignty IMO
Yep. And what’s to stop Pritzker from asking for help from the MN & WI guards. Starts to look awful civil-war-ish.
🫣
It’s fully a civil war.
Not until the organized shooting starts. I'm not saying it won't get there or that a spark couldn't start a conflagration, but we're not quite there yet.
I agree. At Fort Sumter, troops and tensions built for months before shooting started. If / when we have one states’ troops firing upon another’s, then we have open conflict. We of course won’t know if it is a war until much later. What Trump is doing, however, is lighting the powder keg.
Can't Trump federalize them, too? Either the IL NG refuses the orders (and hope other states do, too), or IL has to rely on non-federalizable forces. Right? Maybe recruit other nations to cancel trade/contracts with the US?
I don’t know the constitutionality of any of that. But the constitution starts to matter less. We are drifting to a place where paramilitaries will have to align with individuals’ values. When values and geographies align, the idea of territories develops. And the idea of defense of territories.
"... the deployment of unfederalized Guard personnel into a nonconsenting state is never permissible. If the president wishes to unilaterally deploy military forces into a nonconsenting state, then they must do so through... the Insurrection Act." www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sect...
I have the same question.
I can't believe that they want to open that Pandora's Box. If the Courts allow this bullshit, you just know that Governor Newsom is going to send California Guard units to a red state to address the violent crime rate there which is higher than in Chicago.
Will love to understand how this isn't logically equivalent to an invasion
This given the recent verdict in CA calmatters.org/justice/2025...
This isn’t a posse comitatus issue though. It’s still bad, but a different flavor of egregious
I'd say it's worse
I assume the slap down on posse comitatus is *why* they’re trying it a different way this time
Will defer to you but how is the CA verdict not a PCA issue?
The CA verdict is. This isn’t. The current situation raises other legal issues.
Assuming TX NG are under state authority and not direct federal control, under Title 32 are not subject to the PCA. I assume this was an attempt to avoid the problems demonstrated in the CA lawsuit.
So if they're not under federal control, and not requested by IL, they're just... People walking around Chicago with guns?
Agree and raises the issue of deploying non federalized troops to a non consenting state under title 32, 502(f)
It's not the same problems. It's worse. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/sect...
Exactly. If it involves more than protecting federal people and property, the only legitimate legal authority is the Insurrection Act of 1792. And there is no demonstrably insurrection.
Are they trying to argue that the state of Illinois is in an active insurrection, through the person of Gov. Pritzker? That's the only argument I can see having any traction whatsoever, but with the current SCOTUS, who tf knows.
And that would be handled by ILARNG?
If there really was an insurrection, the president would have to declare it under the proper legal authority and then either federalize national guard units or send regular military units. I’m guessing they want to avoid ever getting to that point because they might lose control of the situation.
This is very informative.
Different issues depending on the authority (title 10 vs title 32) no?
👀 If any extra-state NG is sent on Title 32 to another state, Congressional Dems better make damn sure those Govenors’ coffers are NOT “made whole” with federal funds!! 🤬
The CA case found that the way the NG was *used* was illegal, not that the deployment itself was illegal. The NG *could* have been legally used to protect federal property. I only know this because other lawyers were commenting that the reporting got this point wrong.
It's a rhetorical end around the PCA. Trump initiated the action. Texas is nominally in control, but its NG would not be in Illinois but for Trump. The mission ends when Trump says it ends, just like it started when Trump gave the command. People are overthinking it.
Could Pritzker deploy ILNG to Texas?
There are both legal and practical reasons that he cannot. First, it's just as illegal as the deployment of Texas guard units to Illinois. Second, where would they stay? In hotels? Unless the federal government provides the use of a base, they have no place to stay.
Not legally. This is a Trump administration versus Illinois issue more than a Texas versus Illinois issue. Abbot is simply the useful idiot (as the force provider) allowing the Trump administration to use TXARNG soldiers.
Illegally