If it’s under Title 32 authority, the Texas guard remains under state control. That would mean that one state is deploying armed forces into the territory of a non-consenting state. And that’d clearly be a violation of the principle that states are co-equal, territorially limited sovereigns.
First thing you learn in the military..you can defy an unlawful order..as a matter of fact you are required to not obey that order..these generals are breaking the Military Code of Justice..they stand between a republic or a police state..the must start to obey the LAW
So, war between the states. Putin is cackling.
Doesn’t the statute also limit deployment to adjacent states? Texas can only send troops to what are mostly red states that Trump would never ask for.
Hello- Trump and Republicans have declared war on the American people and Trump works for Putin.
If you can: Be there Be there with others Film stops, arrests, detainments etc by ICE, feds, cops etc Film them walking down the street or standing around Warn others esp potentially vulnerable people Waste their time Monopolize their attention Distract them Make them a spectacle 1/3
Blast (within legal decibel limits) silly songs (for ex: Vanilla Ice) Lawfully engage ICE, feds, cops etc Film them Ask them why they're wearing masks Ask them to remove their masks Ask them their names Ask what agency they work for Ask them where they're from Ask them why they're here 2/3
Mock and ridicule them for masking Ask how it feels to be hated by everyone in town Ask if this is what they thought this assignment would be like Ask if they really want to be here Ask if they'd rather be home where they live with family and friends instead of being hated here 3/3
My ex-lax chocolate cookies are very good. 😊
Wonder how John Roberts is feeling about that presidential immunity ruling now?
Like the Chief Justice of the Confederacy he has always pined for ..
Yeah, Roberts is 100% in on all of this, all the fed soc puppets are
I think he's pleased to see everything going according to plan.
Wishing we would all just accept that Trump is our emperor and stop resisting, and worse, questioning the integrity of his court.
What happens next?
Illinois, if attacked can arrest and incarcerated these seditionists from Texas. They are attacked by enemy from inside the country.
Do the Texas Guard members still have to comply with Illinois law? If armed, can they be arrested by, say the Illinois National Guard, for illegal firearm possession?
This is a bit too clever for Trump, and way too slick. Who’s pulling the strings?
Nothing is stopping Pritzker from activating the national guard in Illinois.
As I recall, SCOTUS has original jurisdiction for disputes between states - should Pritzker go directly to them (and soon) with this?
It’s so funny that you think there are still laws and stuff.
Does that mean Title 42 USC 1983 & 1985 can be used to address civil rights violations committed by the Texas National Guard Members all the way up their chain of command? I would certainly think so?
I'm afraid that would be a literal civil war.
Sounds like a step into the Cool Zone that there's no turning back from
I’m clueless as to what’s legal or not But can’t the Illinois national guard be deployed to stop the Texas national guard Wouldn’t that be the showdown that stops all this shit?
Does anyone think he is going to follow the law? Raise your hand.
And this is how the Civil War V2 starts? Still North vs South. Maybe we can get Sherman to march through Texas. I would say burn down Trump tower but he will end up making money on the insurance.
Um...how is this not an invasion? As in, civil war?
🎯💯 Perhaps felon Trump is trying to split the nation
That’s exactly what he & Poot (& other nihilists) want. 😒
States have treaties among themselves, much like sovereign nations. They usually don’t invade like this. Wonder if they will do a Southern “yee-haw” as they attack the citizens of Chicago?
If you don't believe that Texas Governor Greg Abbott isn't fully on board enacting the Treasonous acts of a Syphilis-riddled #Pedo-President47, you don't know the coward, grifting, Christo-fascist Catholic, lying, failed human that is Greg Abbott.
So...civil war Mmmm ok
Even if they are federalized, I don’t think Trump could send one state’s NG into another without that governor’s consent (?). He is trying to transpose the D.C. playbook
But the DC playbook only works because it isn’t a state.
Well if anyone knows anything about non-consensual acts, it's Trump
Pritzker seems resigned to it happening either way. Much of his rhetoric is about peaceful citizen resistance, not exercising State sovereignty.
If he’s using 12406, the statue says he can call into federal service members of the National Guard “in any state.” So I think their argument would be that you can use 12406 to federalize the guard in any state and send them to another w/o raising state sovereignty issues (bc they’re federalized)
![Cornell Law School Legal LI] Information Institute Search Cornell Q Menu Whenever— (1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or (3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia. (Added Pub. L. 103-337, div. A, title XVI, § 1662(f)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2994; amondor Duh I 100-162 civ A titlo X](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:t4x2ruk2qmob2b2cx55h4v7r/bafkreidrneguiealzz2ianiur3ckyr2do6r3tf4ipw6dzgn22vy5niqzae@jpeg)
In any state means that state. But as Judge Breyer stated in California, there is no Rebellion!
What the hell. So even though the court decision today was California the felon still thinks he can act with impunity or this is a way around those pesky laws he does not like.
Crime figures and trends don't meet the smell test here so it's a stretch to say it's about law enforcement.
Except didnt they just lose that argument in California?
No. The California decision today was about how they *used* the military — not whether the guard was properly federalized in the first instance (that’s before the 9th Cir.)
If Pritzker is right though, then yes, they lost the argument. He said the National Guard were going to go out with ICE to arrest people.
The phrase "in any state" doesn't appear in that section.
None of those three conditions apply, of course, but when has that ever stopped him?
Yeah they just become the equivalent of federal troops when in Title 10. But the only way to put someone into title 10, consent of home state gov or not, is via that statute that requires some showing that the federal officials have been impeded from executing the law
I do think Quinta is right that it looks like Title 32 is more likely here
Justifying any of this legally is an afterthought to them, mostly because they think they’ll crush anyone who would bring a challenge to the courts. They’re just going to do it on the assumption no one will stop them, and they won’t HAVE to defend its legality.
Wouldn't this be limited to federal laws (of the United States) they aren't enforced by federal "forces", rather than run of the mill state felonies?
F that
Whenever any of three conditions aren’t applicable, you go home
So, I was just listening to Amicus and @dahlialithwick.bsky.social and her guest (Liza Goitein) were discussing this. Goitein was saying, basically, that this can't happen based on the premise.
Shouldn't the governor know this
The Grey House has adopted the Silicon Valley approach used by Uber. Establish your program no matter what the law says, let communities sue, fight in court and in the meantime change reality on the ground. Doesn’t this sound like colonialism? How Western lands were taken. Force, not law!
Our current fascist leader will not follow the law. He will not follow the constitution. Do not expect any different. The only options we have right now to stop the bullshit is to either vote out all republicans in future elections. Or to start a revolution. Pick one…
How about we call them what they are: Confederate forces.
More context from someone much smarter than me bsky.app/profile/stev...
Though, now I'm seeing the federal statue about enforcing the laws. That suggests that they are going to go super broad and SCOTUS will eventually let them do it after they've been terrorizing Chicago for months. This system is so broken.
@dahlialithwick.bsky.social Time to fight fire with FIRE 🔥🔥🔥 bsky.app/profile/sane...
How? States don't send tax money to DC. Employers send it directly.
Watch the video :) I'm Canadian, just sharing something that sounds like a good idea. Don't know much else :)
He makes the same mistake (and he's not alone). Blue states have no effective way to stop their money from going to the federal government.
😢
As soon as a judge declares it to be illegal, the national guard should not follow illegal orders. They shouldn’t become traitors to our country and constitution.
ugh
We're left to scrutinize which the sitting POTUS is using to deploy NG troops to the streets of US cities as if it's just a thing that one does now.
I’m out of my depth, but that last part — acting through the governor — doesn’t seem to automatically confer new authorities on that governor to command his/her NG to enter and take action in another state without the latter’s consent is this a reasonable reading?
So this statute would be what Trump would likely use to federalize a guard that was under state control (as he did in CA). Once federalized, they are basically federal troops—not state troops under command of Governor. So if 12406, state sovereignty issue not at play.
The language about issuing order through governors is just a procedural/ministerial requirement the president has to follow in order to federalize the guard. 9th Cir. interpreted it to be a pretty minimal — doesn’t give governors veto power over federalization
1) California should change its law so that the Adjutant General does not act as the governor's agent in such situations – ie, it must be the governor, personally. As to then what happens if the governor refuses... 🍿 (caveat: That was shot from the hip) 2) I'm waiting to see if Trump nationalizes…
... Illinois' National Guard to keep Pritzker from using them in any way. I've been figuring THAT is something Trump wants to try now to see how the courts might handle it.
thanks for replying and explaining among the triggering conditions, (1) and (2) strike me as very difficult (if not impossible) to sustain as predicates that leaves (3), which is grounded in escalation b/c of POTUS's impotence, whether real or feigned it's crazy but also consistent w/the times
Does any of this even matter? He’s doing it and when some judge says it’s illegal the streets of Chicago will be already filled with TX “soldiers”.
It’s seems it would be tantamount to a civil war sending one states guard into another at the behest of the executive w/o any request from the invaded state’s govt for such an action!
The real question is why Nancy Pelosi gave him permission to do this. 🙄
bsky.app/profile/mike...
Have to define "federalized" If T32, that's not actually federalized, that's just state authority with federal dollars If T10, then they're legally indistinguishable from active duty troops and the same authorities and limitations apply Fwiw the DC playbook was (somehow) T32, because DC is weird
tx national guard are *supposedly* already here, just north of chicago.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's common sense that a state can't invade another.
I don’t know, but in my opinion I’d call this the beginning of a civil war 🤷🏻♀️
"Don't quote laws to men with swords" Pompey They don't care. They are playing by new rules now.
Hard to imagine any declaration of civil war more straightforward!
When does CA just stop paying the Federal government? They claim they will use the law at that point. But they’re ignoring every other one? *Signed bored loudmouth spinning wheels.
bsky.app/profile/anna...
And, of course, this appears more and more relevant: bsky.app/profile/did:...
The base outside Chicago (north 35-40 minutes) is a Naval Station. I wonder if they’re going to head there. This is awful. Why does anyone think we live in anything other than an authoritarian state?!?
If Illinois is to be the crisis point, at least we have the wise leadership of Governor Pritzker. The way he is speaking about this is so well thought out and clear.
Pritzker should push the issue, activate the IL Nat Guard and place them in defensive positions on major access roads either near the base where the TX Guard is billeted or to Chicago. Saying it's an invasion is not as convincing as treating it as one and it develops facts for the Sup Ct showdown
How do these states' Nat. Guard members not take offense to this declaration of war against them? How do they not want to resist a takeover of their city/state? When does physical resistance happen? Are 100% of Nat. Guard members on the side of the fascist regime controlling the un-United States???
Clearly DT is trying to avoid calling out and Federalizing IL Nat Guard based on his experience in LA with CA Nat Guard and in DC with DC National Guard. In those two cases there was plenty of push back and lack of support for the "mission." That's why he's trying red state good old boys instead.
should activate the Illinois guard to tell them to stand down
Activate Illinois National Guard and send to Houst.
No Dallas. Specifically Tarrant County.
Sounds like Civil War shit to me. 😑
Arrest ALL those kidnapping people off of street. Make them prove: They are a US Citizen They are law enforcement, POST certificate They have an ID with a photo They have a warrant Confiscate, their phone, weapon, ammunition, radios, all ID's.
And why @govpritzker.illinois.gov should call up both the IL NG and the ISP to blockade the TX NG from entering Cook County. Create a standoff. Force the courts to intervene. Get Congress off the dime. I would rather have that now in 2025 than just before the elections in '26 or '28
This will not end well if they try to deploy into the city under Title 32 -- Pritzker won't stand for it.
translation: civil war
Didn’t they already send Ohio into California? If I’m incorrect on that, what states’ National Guard troops were sent?
What happens if Pritzker calls up the Illinois guard to defend against the Texas guard?
Exactly what the Pedofuhrer wants.
We end up with a standoff like Lexington and concord. That could fizzle out, or spark a major new catastrophe.
A lot of words to say Texas is invading Illinois
Yes, that is invasion, similar to what happened in 1861. Eerily similar.
Soo... can Wash. State or Montana take over and claim the Idaho Panhandle? Pls.
Texas is playing a dangerous game to allow itself to be used this way. There’s no guarantee the Tr*mp administration and/or right-leaning judges can get them out of this.
@annabower.bsky.social @qjurecic.bsky.social Also would mean the IL guard is available to be deployed by Pritzker against the TX guard. Aka civil war. And then Trump tries to federalize the IL guard. Pritzker resists. IL doesn’t know who commander in chief is. Trump declares rebellion. Who knows.
Texas Illinois NG under Title 10 or Title 32? WICOTTNG? bsky.app/profile/qjur...
I mean, it's an even more fundamental violation: that of the union itself
Right. This approach actually accelerates the pressures on the nation. Which amongst many possibilities might range from an attempt to work around the court rulings to an intentional strategy to cause the rupture they want to seize more power.
I seem to recall another time when southern states deployed militia units to northern states. Can't remember exactly what happened. Left my notes at my old Gettysburg address.
Laying the predicate for declaring a national emergency …with all the subtlety of a bunker-buster.
If they aren’t federalized, Pritzker should deploy the Illinois guard under arms to stop the Texas guard
Then stop the whining and do secession already It's crystal clear that under this constitution the hillbilly flyovers will always pertain their dictatorship over the rest of US
Having once parked a vehicle in Chicago 18 inches from the curb, I pray for these TX national guard vehicles. I predict they will be booted and impounded within a week.
Makes sense to me. One question: Who's going to prosecute that? Surely not the DoJ.
Blue states send the Guard to Texas to help people after a disaster. Texas sends the Guard to blue states to terrorize innocent brown people. Those MFers aren’t like us.
The courts need to intervene more. cbwrong.blogspot.com/2025/08/trum...
This administration laughs at the constitution except for 2A. That’s the real important thing to them.
The Constitution is so 2024.
Meaning... basically... MAGA's long hoped-for civil war is about to start?
So Gavin Newsom needs to send the California National Guard to Texas to help Abbott celebrate Mexican Independence Day too.
Anna Bower 4ever♥️
And if Texas thinks it has a right to defend itself from a migrant "invasion" from Mexico, then Shirley Illinois has a right to defend itself from an invasion by the troops of another state!
It is at the very least a violation of the 10th amendment, no?
Isn’t this fun
Not so much funny "ha ha" as funny "ahhhhhh!"
It sounds like some kind of theoretical game nerds would play in college. But it's real life.
I remember studying the Red River Bridge War between Texas and Oklahoma and thinking, “we were so stupid back then.” Also, it’s always Texas, isn’t it?
Michigan and Ohio fought for a few days over the Toledo Strip, if that makes it any better. (Michigan got the better of the deal with the UP.)
Seems the Alamo was too. I'm all for giving Tx back to Mexico.
Should let Mexico have it
In non legal terms, Texas is invading Illinois.
So can texas Guard members be arrested if they arrive in Illinois?
This is mostly true, but there is a novel interpretation of "training as directed by the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force" that says they could direct them to do this. It's a perversion of the use of 502(f) for disaster response using the EMAC as the state authority.
Ok good. Now what?
Feels like the Illinois National Guard should create a human barrier to bar the Texas National Guard from entering. Well, really, it feels like the Texas National Guard should refuse an order that resembles civil war. But that won't happen.
Things are finally about to get real 😳
😬
And.... What's the punishment How to stop this ??
I'd suggest the Illinois NG meet the Confederates, I meant the Texans, at the border and send them home where they belong.
I imagine in this case it would be O'Hare airport (closest airport to Great Lakes Naval Base where they will be stationed).
So this is unconstitutional, correct?
If there’s no federal authority here it seems like Illinois could simply arrest them.
That was my question from day one. How is this not an invasion by another state.
So what, hypothetically, could result if Governor Pritzker sent his Illinois National Guard to meet the Texas troops?
Deploy first. Make them come to you. (They won't.)
open.substack.com/pub/divideda...
📌
Again, rape culture as National policy.
Remember when these people were the biggest advocates of State's rights? So much for that....
They'll be common criminals from Texas violating Illinois gun laws. Disarm them, zip tie them, and take them to jail.
So, like, Civil War II: Fossil Fuel Boogaloo
Is that no different to the State being invaded? If so, should not U.S. military forces be protecting the invaded State, from the forces of the invading State? If not, is that situation not close to some sort of undeclared form of civil war? Or does U.S. law permit States to invade each other?
Could Illinois treat these "National Guard troops" as criminals?
Well I do not know, but if someone comes from anywhere and attacks you, that's assault and a crime, Right?
Betcha a dollar if California was asked to assist the Illinois NG, all of Texas and the trump administration would claim constitutional violation. I'm honestly surprised its taken all summer to get to this point. I half expected these moves in June.
I mean what if Pritzker calls up the IL guard?
What would stop IL. from deploy it's guard to marshal the TX. guard out of the state? Trump federalized the IL guard? If Trump federalized the IL. guard could IL. then direct the state police to stop the TX. guard from deploying?
Pritzker should call up the Illinois Guard to defend against the invasion by the Texas Guard. If Trump wants civil war, let’s not surrender without a fight. If Texas parents want to send their kids to die in the streets of Illinois, let ‘em.
He should send the Illinois guard to prevent them from deploying out of the naval base. Take a defensive posture and put the ball on the their court. If they want to be the ones to start the war and go on the offensive let them be the ones to light the fuse.
This is where we’re at ..
Boogaloo singularity
I was thinking the same thing. Further, CPD should enforce the Mayor’s EO banning mask wearing by ICE. Arrest them for noncompliance.
Why can't Illinois go to the Supreme Court NOW for an injunction?
This Supreme Court? Are we sure how that will go?
Won't know until we try
JFC!!
you still think they are going by laws...lol..smh..thats cute...they dont give a F ...
Which means the governor of Illinois could call up the Illinois NG to stop them, which could get messy.
Post IL NG at all highway entrances into IL & at the airports.
Real generals plan logistics not strategy. Pritzker needs to deny outside troops: Fuel, Shelter, and Food. Pass a state law to make it a crime for local vendors to supply fuel, shelter, and food. State Attorney General can enforce with $$ penalties against vendors. No need for police confrontation.
Uhhh... Did Texas technically just do an act of war against Illinois?
You know, the more I think about this, the less I am sure of why I included "technically" as a weasel word there. One sovereign entity deploying unwanted armed troops into a peer sovereign entity is historically an act of war, even if this is likely to end peacefully in the modern world.
Shockingly little keeps us in "it could never happen here and now," and those safeties are rapidly eroding. Pritzker's unlikely to order IL Guard to attack TX guard, but history is full of lessons of how "it could never happen here" turned out to have been obvious powder keg in hindsight.
I'm pretty sure illinois could make it illegal to serve texas national guard in the state.
Yeah but who’s gonna adjudicate that? The state attorney generals are sleeping.
Actually 23 state AGs have been preparing together for a united response for some time.
Credit where credit is due. But they gotta file.
📌
So just to clarify, this is the Texas National Guard or the Texas State Guard? Two different entities.
🤯💥🤯💥🤯💥🤯
The South fired on Fort Sumpter to begin the Civil War.
I want to see Gov Pritzger call up IL natl guard & post them at the entrance to IL. Don't let them in.
Imagine, if you will, a president whose major task, maybe even his specific and sole instruction, is to create division and strife. It's almost like there's something/someone trying to break up America.
I think it is most likely under the authority of "no one will physically stop us".
THERE IS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR A PRESIDENT TO USE THE MILITARY TO INVADE STATES BECAUSE HE DOES NOT LIKE THEM---seriously....give your head a shake and look at what is actually going on.
It's an invasion. Period. Fuck the legal niceties. Repel with all necessary force or the country is done. Don't negotiate with tyrants, or work it out with corrupt referees. Kick them in the balls at the first encroachment and keep kicking until they lose their appetite for undermining the law.
The law has ceased to exist in this country. That’s why this is war. And if we don’t fight it we lose it by default.
Indeed - too much over analysing the legal minutiae clouding what’s actually happening. The press have FULLY conceded that Trump is doing this because of crime and some legal analysts are part the way there. The press because they want to see what happens, analysts because they are afraid.
This is one of those things that's easy for me to say because I'm not in Chicago, but how wonderful it would be if hundreds upon hundreds of folks laid down in the middle of the road leading out of the base. 100% non-violent resistance to force the issue. I appreciate that they may face (1/ )
arrest under Illinois law, hence my comment about this being easy for me to say, but there'd be no avoiding the question at that point. (2/2)
Thank you for the clear explanation of this.
"I can do whatever I want. I'm the president of the United States." - Donald Trump Watch him do whatever he wants, with the full support of Congress and the Supreme Court.
And if Feds are not controlling Texas NG, The Governor of Texas is their chief commanding officer inside Illinois. Amazing,
💯 this seems important...
*something something the war over the Toledo Strip between Ohio and Michigan* We’re back to that kind of thing now..
It sure looks like Illinois needs to proactively mobilize their National Guard to Chicago as a counter measure
Illinois should immediately invade Louisiana to stop the carnage
I don't imagine the people of #Chicago #Illinois are going to take kindly to Confederate troops invading their state. 😬
Imagine if you will, the Governor of Illinois sending national guard to one of the many southern states who have higher crime rates than Illinois. The right would be fine with that. Right?
🎯
AKA - CIVIL WAR
Maybe illinois and california should send their national guard into texas.
So California was invaded by Texas!?
Put it to the test and expel them
Which is why some states passed laws to prevent this, like Texas, for example.
WA did one last session.
fox news personnel will rewrite that!
The problem is nobody in this administration or Texas, gives a damn if it’s legal or not. Whatever it takes to create the illusion that Blue Cities are hellholes & dear leader is the only one that can fix it. Immigration/Mass Deportation 2.0
It's an invasion. IL doesn't want them there.
The same Texas sued Michigan. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in an attempt to disenfranchise the votes of millions in December 2020. Texas is a cesspool of political corruption and has ceded its sovereignty to Trump.
📌
Can we clarify if they’re sending the Texas national guard or the Texas state guard? It matters because the Texas state guard are glorified Boy Scouts and this could be really funny if that’s the case
Boy scouts have a code.
What would happen if Pritzker mobilized the Illinois National Guard to protect his citizens from the Texas National Guard? Interesting scenario to imagine.
Ssssh!! Don't say "non-consenting", otherwise you'll get deluged by rwnjs from Texas asking, "But, what was Arkansas wearing??", and "Yeah, I bet Kentucky was drunk again so they couldn't say that they DON'T consent."
So Illinois would/could sue on their own behalf?
I will trust J.B. Pritzker 100 times out of 100 times before I'd ever think about trusting Greg Abbott.
Illinois kicked Texas’s ass in the last civil war, just saying.
Fort Sumter comes to mind.
Is Trump trying to goad Pritzker into calling up the Illinois National Guard to defend its citizens? It may becoming to that.
You think Trump is calling Abbott repeatedly calling him a p@ssy for not doing it and if he really loved him he’d do it?
I don't know anything about the relevant statutes, so I'll throw out that if the TX guard is quartered anywhere outside of federal property, I think we're in legit 3rd Amendment territory.
There's Motel 6
The physical start of the new civil war coming to yours & my door November 2026.
I think we’re way past the point of Trump caring about whether or not the things he does are legal. We’re at the point where there’s a non-zero chance the Texas Nat Guard and Illinois Nat Guard end up fighting; a nightmare scenario that could start a second civil war.
I assume Pritzker could mobilize the IL NG and have them blockade Great Lakes?
At that point Pritzker's admitting that it's a civil war. Ordering the IL NG to not assist the feds is one thing, but this would be another.
Does this set up a state v state lawsuit under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
If the uninvited, rogue Texas NG troops leave the Naval Station Great Lakes armed, could Illinois state or municipal police enforce their basic gun laws on the perpetrators?
if only there were a way to sever the head of this snake.
He’s using other states guard units because guardsmen might hesitate to fire upon their own state citizens.
TX NG shouldn't be shooting at anyone in the US! In TX or in another state. It's not what they are supposed to be doing.
I agree but I’m thinking of the worst case scenario because it looks like another civil war is on the horizon.
So, sending Texas Guards to Illinois. Illinois calls up their Guards to protect their homeland. Jesus, Trump really is the second Jefferson Davis!!!