A Tennessee judge has joined a growing number of legal challenges resisting the Trump governance’s attempts to deploy federal troops to cities across the contry, the latest ruling coming as the administration seeks Supreme Court intervention in a similar case involving Chicago.
The legal battles center on the administration’s efforts to utilize National guard and other military personnel in response to protests and unrest,raising questions about the limits of presidential authority over state and local law enforcement. The administration is currently appealing rulings that block these deployments,and has specifically asked the Supreme court to review the case concerning Chicago. The outcome of these cases could have broad implications for the balance of power between the federal government and states, and for the future use of military force domestically.
legal experts suggest the scope of any Supreme Court ruling will determine the extent of its impact. “The more broadly they construe their opinion, the more broad of an effect we’re going to see,” explained Chris Mirasola, a national security law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
The disputes arise as President trump has also indicated a willingness to send troops to approximately half a dozen other cities and has alluded to invoking the Insurrection act, a law that would allow the deployment of federal troops to suppress domestic disturbances.
While courts can place some restrictions on the president’s use of the military, Mirasola emphasized the importance of public opinion as a check on presidential power. “It’s always going to be public sentiment that I think is especially consequential,” he said.
