Amna Nawaz:
The administration argues that the president had discretion to deploy the troops and they’re in the city to protect law enforcement.
Meanwhile, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who filed the temporary restraining order earlier this week, has said the White House’s actions are a — quote — “power grab” that violates the U.S. Constitution.
Joining me now to discuss this further is Liza Goitein. She’s senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.
Liza, welcome back to the program and thanks for joining us.
Let’s start with this legal fight now over the federal deployment of troops in response to those protests against immigration raids. Walk us through the administration’s legal main argument here. How are they justifying the deployment of those troops?
Elizabeth Goitein, Brennan Center for Justice: So, the administration is relying on an obscure statute that has actually never before been used as a stand-alone authority to quell civil unrest.
That’s a law that requires, in order to quell civil unrest, that there be a rebellion against government authority or that it be impossible for the president to execute the law without deploying the military.
Now, those conditions don’t really seem to have been met here, but what the government is arguing is that the court cannot review whether the president’s findings were correct or not, that as long as the president says that there was a rebellion, there was a rebellion.
So that’s really the main argument. The government is also claiming a vast inherent constitutional authority to deploy federal troops to protect federal property and functions. This is a longstanding executive branch theory, but it really hasn’t been tested in the courts yet.
