Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Protesters are staging demonstrations across hundreds of cities this Saturday as part of a “day of defiance” against the Trump administration. These individuals are exercising their First Amendment rights to criticize national policies. However, should the protests escalate into violence, President Donald Trump has both constitutional and legal authority to deploy troops for restoring law and order.
Recent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles have highlighted the urgent need for decisive action from the President. News reports depict scenes of violence aimed at hindering the enforcement of federal immigration law. Protesters have disrupted federal operations, blocked highways, and clashed with federal officers. The unrest has spread to cities including Austin, Chicago, New York, and Denver, showcasing evident efforts to obstruct the Department of Homeland Security in apprehending illegal aliens.
In response to these developments, President Donald Trump has activated 2,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines for deployment in Los Angeles. Instead of welcoming this federal assistance, California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed hostility toward the troops. He condemned the deployment as “illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional,” even referring to Trump’s actions as those of a dictator while challenging federal authorities to arrest him.
Despite the harsh rhetoric from Newsom and other California officials, the military deployment is well within the President’s powers. Trump clarified that the purpose of these military units is to “temporarily protect” federal agents in Los Angeles and safeguard federal property amid ongoing and potential protests based on current risk assessments and planned operations.
Currently, Los Angeles is not descending into chaos similar to the riots of 1992. This administration is not undermining the state’s obligation to ensure public safety, but rather enforcing federal immigration laws. A Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States clarified that only federal officials can execute immigration law and policy.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the President’s authority to mobilize military resources for the protection of federal law enforcement agents executing their duties. In the precedent-setting case In re Neagle, the Court sanctioned the use of force by a federal marshal in defense of a Supreme Court Justice. Although no law explicitly permitted this use of force, the Court emphasized that the government has the power to enforce its laws on American soil.
The federal government’s supremacy mandates that the President must ensure the security of its officials as they execute the law. During periods of extensive labor unrest in the late 19th century, the Supreme Court extended the Neagle precedent, affirming the President’s authority to maintain order not only for federal personnel but also in carrying out their functions.
In 1894, President Grover Cleveland dispatched U.S. troops to prevent disruptions caused by union organizers blocking trains nationwide. The Court later affirmed in In re Debs that the full strength of the nation can be mobilized to enforce national powers and secure constitutional rights.
Congress has also ratified the President’s authority through Title 10 of the U.S. Code, allowing the activation of the National Guard not just in cases of invasion or rebellion but also when the President is unable to enforce federal laws with regular military forces. This power operates as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement except when authorized by the Constitution or specific congressional acts.
The military deployment to protect federal personnel and facilities is inherently defensive. Force is a last resort, used only if rioters initiate attacks. However, President Trump possesses the power to shift this mission from one of defense to actively enforcing immigration law and addressing obstruction of justice. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives Congress the authority to authorize federal intervention, even without state approval, when disorder rises to the level of insurrection.
This law was previously invoked by President Dwight Eisenhower to desegregate schools in Little Rock after Governor Orville Faubus defied federal orders. Similarly, President George H.W. Bush used it during the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Trump’s powers under this act could be activated if unrest extends beyond attacks on ICE and DHS officials to a broader collapse of law and order in the streets.
Critics may raise concerns that Trump’s actions target illegal immigrants and minority communities. However, the government’s responsibility to enforce the law is impartial. Presidents have applied similar powers to enforce civil rights during the 1950s and 1960s. The initial prohibition against federal troops in law enforcement emerged from Southern states’ desire to end federal oversight after the Civil War, highlighting a historical reluctance that still impacts current policies.
If opponents of federal immigration enforcement wish to curb the government’s powers, they must also acknowledge the need for those same authorities to uphold civil rights law against states. Instead of obstructing the federal government’s implementation of policies endorsed through electoral processes, those seeking immigration reform should utilize the tools available, such as congressional authority concerning funding, legislation, and oversight, leading ultimately to electoral outcomes.
In summary, the constitutional authority held by the President in this context is explicit. The ongoing debate about immigration policy can be addressed through political means rather than obstructing lawful federal actions.
