Trump orders National Guard troops to Chicago area | DW News

Key Concepts

• Federalized National Guard: State National Guard units brought under federal command.
• Anti-insurrection law: Legislation allowing the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections or enforce federal law.
• Sovereignty of individual states: The principle that states retain independent authority within the U.S. federal system, particularly regarding law enforcement.
• Posse Comitatus Act: A federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) that generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes, with exceptions.
• Constitutional crisis: A situation where the normal functioning of a country's constitutional system is severely challenged or broken down due to a conflict between branches of government or a disregard for constitutional principles.
• ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement): A federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws.

Introduction: Deployment of National Guard to Chicago

The discussion begins with the deployment of National Guard troops from Texas to Illinois, specifically on the outskirts of Chicago, at the request of U.S. President Trump. President Trump stated these troops were needed to combat violent crime in America's third-largest city. However, Illinois's Governor, J.B. Pritzker, and Chicago's Mayor oppose this deployment and are suing to have the troops removed. The deployed troops are federalized National Guard members, primarily from Texas, with some also from Illinois.

President Trump's Threats and Legal Challenges

President Trump escalated the situation by publicly stating that the Chicago mayor and the governor of Illinois "should be put in jail for failing to protect immigration ICE officers." He also threatened to invoke an anti-insurrection law to bypass any court orders that might block his actions.

Professor Paul Anthony Galer, a professor of law at Northwestern University's School of Law, expressed shock and confusion regarding Trump's threats. He firmly stated there is "no legal ground whatsoever to put either the governor or the mayor in prison." Professor Galer provided two main reasons:

1. Protection of ICE Agents: Governor Pritzker had, in fact, protected ICE agents by deploying state police to create a cordon between the main ICE facility in Illinois and protesters, specifically to prevent violence.
2. Constitutional Prohibition: The U.S. Constitution "prohibits the federal government from ordering around state law enforcement." This is a "well-established principle that goes to the sovereignty of individual states in our federal system." Professor Galer described Trump's threat as "yet another frankly bid for dictatorial power."

The Legality of National Guard Deployment

The deployment of the National Guard in this context is legally complex and largely unprecedented. Illinois has its own National Guard, but Governor Pritzker has not requested their deployment for this purpose and is "unwilling to participate in his efforts to federalize the Illinois National Guard" because, in Professor Galer's view, Mr. Trump is "essentially trying to create chaos in the streets."

Regarding the Texas National Guard, Professor Galer explained that Texas is "loaning its National Guard essentially to the president while still nominally under the command of the state of Texas." This arrangement might be an attempt to navigate different regulations, particularly concerning the Posse Comitatus Act, which "forbids the federal military from participating in law enforcement." Some legal interpretations suggest this act might not apply if the National Guard remains under the command of a state governor, even when "loaned" for federal purposes.

Professor Galer emphatically stated that Chicago does not need National Guard troops to protect against crime. Furthermore, he highlighted that federal government participation in "ordinary crime control" is "actually unconstitutional for a separate reason." He cited that the Supreme Court, for "30 years," has been clear that "the federal government doesn't have authority over ordinary day-to-day law enforcement in the states." This means the federal government "can't run around, you know, policing carjackings and muggings or whatnot, even if we needed it, which we don't."

The Ongoing Constitutional Crisis

Professor Galer asserted that the United States "has been in a constitutional crisis for a while now." He provided specific examples to support this claim:

• Deportations to El Salvador: Planes carrying "alleged gang members" were sent to El Salvador, where individuals were deported into prisons "without trial," which Professor Galer deemed "itself clearly unconstitutional."
• ICE Raid in Chicago: A few days prior, ICE agents conducted a "military-style attack on an apartment building in the city of Chicago," involving "repelling from helicopters and breaking down over a hundred doors without, as far as one can tell, any kind of a search warrant." This operation resulted in the arrest of "over a hundred people," who were detained "without any individual suspicion about their immigration status," and "forcing them to prove their papers." Professor Galer concluded, "The constitutional crisis is here."

Crime Control: State vs. Federal Responsibility

While acknowledging that some residents in high-crime neighborhoods in Chicago might welcome the presence of troops due to perceived police inaction, Professor Galer maintained that this represents a "small number of people." He reiterated that "day-to-day crime control is in our constitutional system the responsibility of the states not the federal government." This, he stressed, is "a basic principle of our constitutional order."

Conclusion

The deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Chicago at President Trump's behest, against the will of Illinois's state and local leadership, represents a significant challenge to established constitutional principles. Professor Paul Anthony Galer's analysis underscores the lack of legal basis for Trump's threats against state officials and the unconstitutionality of federal intervention in routine state law enforcement. The situation highlights the delicate balance of power between federal and state governments, particularly concerning state sovereignty and the Posse Comitatus Act. Professor Galer argues that these actions, alongside previous federal overreaches like the ICE raid in Chicago and deportations without trial, are symptomatic of an ongoing constitutional crisis, where fundamental legal norms and individual rights are being systematically challenged. The core takeaway is the critical importance of upholding the constitutional division of powers, ensuring that crime control remains primarily a state responsibility, and safeguarding against executive actions that undermine due process and state sovereignty.