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
Replies
But the DC playbook only works because it isn’t a state.
sep 2, 2025, 9:55 pm • 8 0 • view
Well if anyone knows anything about non-consensual acts, it's Trump
sep 2, 2025, 9:56 pm • 5 0 • view
Pritzker seems resigned to it happening either way. Much of his rhetoric is about peaceful citizen resistance, not exercising State sovereignty.
sep 2, 2025, 10:07 pm • 0 0 • view
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)
sep 2, 2025, 10:05 pm • 95 20 • view
In any state means that state. But as Judge Breyer stated in California, there is no Rebellion!
sep 3, 2025, 1:21 am • 2 0 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:22 pm • 0 0 • view
Crime figures and trends don't meet the smell test here so it's a stretch to say it's about law enforcement.
sep 2, 2025, 10:09 pm • 2 0 • view
Except didnt they just lose that argument in California?
sep 2, 2025, 10:14 pm • 1 0 • view
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.)
sep 2, 2025, 10:31 pm • 11 2 • view
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.
sep 3, 2025, 1:05 am • 0 0 • view
The phrase "in any state" doesn't appear in that section.
sep 2, 2025, 10:46 pm • 0 0 • view
None of those three conditions apply, of course, but when has that ever stopped him?
sep 2, 2025, 10:40 pm • 0 0 • view
Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States. Quite certain Pritzker hadn’t issued the orders.
sep 3, 2025, 12:39 pm • 0 0 • view
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
sep 2, 2025, 10:07 pm • 18 2 • view
I do think Quinta is right that it looks like Title 32 is more likely here
sep 2, 2025, 10:07 pm • 10 0 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 11:00 pm • 4 0 • view
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?
sep 2, 2025, 10:18 pm • 1 1 • view
F that
sep 2, 2025, 10:10 pm • 0 0 • view
Whenever any of three conditions aren’t applicable, you go home
sep 2, 2025, 10:24 pm • 0 0 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:13 pm • 136 37 • view
Shouldn't the governor know this
sep 3, 2025, 12:04 am • 0 0 • view
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!
sep 3, 2025, 2:57 am • 1 0 • view
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…
sep 3, 2025, 12:16 am • 1 0 • view
How about we call them what they are: Confederate forces.
sep 3, 2025, 12:07 am • 2 0 • view
More context from someone much smarter than me bsky.app/profile/stev...
sep 2, 2025, 10:48 pm • 6 1 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:18 pm • 24 2 • view
@dahlialithwick.bsky.social Time to fight fire with FIRE 🔥🔥🔥 bsky.app/profile/sane...
sep 3, 2025, 12:46 am • 0 0 • view
How? States don't send tax money to DC. Employers send it directly.
sep 3, 2025, 3:00 am • 0 0 • view
Watch the video :) I'm Canadian, just sharing something that sounds like a good idea. Don't know much else :)
sep 3, 2025, 3:12 am • 0 0 • view
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.
sep 3, 2025, 3:19 am • 1 0 • view
😢
sep 3, 2025, 3:24 am • 0 0 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:46 pm • 2 2 • view
ugh
sep 2, 2025, 11:31 pm • 0 0 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:23 pm • 0 0 • view
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?
sep 2, 2025, 10:10 pm • 5 0 • view
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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:26 pm • 11 2 • view
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
sep 2, 2025, 10:26 pm • 12 2 • view
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…
sep 2, 2025, 10:41 pm • 1 0 • view
... 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.
sep 2, 2025, 10:41 pm • 0 0 • view
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
sep 3, 2025, 5:25 am • 0 0 • view
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”.
sep 2, 2025, 10:15 pm • 0 0 • view
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!
sep 2, 2025, 10:24 pm • 0 1 • view
The real question is why Nancy Pelosi gave him permission to do this. 🙄
sep 2, 2025, 10:06 pm • 0 0 • view
bsky.app/profile/mike...
sep 2, 2025, 9:56 pm • 14 1 • view
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
sep 2, 2025, 10:02 pm • 7 0 • view
tx national guard are *supposedly* already here, just north of chicago.
sep 2, 2025, 10:05 pm • 0 0 • view
I was assigned to 1st Helicopter Sq at Andrews. We made an emergency landing in a school playground and couldn’t guard our own aircraft overnight. Hired local cops to do it. Posse Comitatus was the given reason. So yeah. Can’t send troops.
sep 3, 2025, 9:17 am • 0 0 • view