Stop pretending Posse Comitatus neuters the president



President Trump drew heavy criticism for calling up the California National Guard to confront anti-ICE rioting in Los Angeles in July. On Sept. 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer blocked the move, claiming it violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. He delayed his order until Sept. 12, but the administration immediately appealed, and the Ninth Circuit has already granted a partial stay while the case moves forward.

Critics insist Trump is misusing the military as some kind of “secret police.” They invoke the Posse Comitatus Act as if it were an absolute ban on military involvement in domestic affairs. That is flatly wrong. The Act does not prohibit the president from using the Army, Marines, or National Guard to enforce federal law. It simply requires that such forces be deployed under the president’s authority, not at the whim of a sheriff or local marshal.

The real danger comes not from Trump’s use of the National Guard, but from a judiciary willing to invent limits the Constitution never imposed.

The Constitution itself grants the president this power. Article IV, Section 4 reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Congress reinforced that authority in the Insurrection Act of 1807, which authorized the president to use the Army when it became “impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” In short: When mobs threaten federal law, the president has the duty — and the power — to act.

What Posse Comitatus really meant

Before 1878, federal marshals could deputize Army units as a local posse. That pulled soldiers out of their chain of command and placed them under partisan officials. Officers objected, rightly fearing the practice would corrupt the Army. They welcomed congressional intervention.

The Posse Comitatus Act corrected that flaw. It barred the military from being drafted by civil authorities except when the Constitution or Congress explicitly authorized it. The Act did not strip the president of power. It reaffirmed that only the president, acting under constitutional authority, could commit troops to restore order.

History bears this out. The U.S. military has intervened in domestic affairs 167 times since America’s founding. Soldiers put down the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s, enforced fugitive slave laws in the 1850s, and captured John Brown at Harpers Ferry in 1859. After the Civil War, troops secured polling places so freedmen could vote. The Act was not written to stop such uses, but to prevent local abuse.

As scholar John Brinkerhoff explained in 2002, “All that [the Posse Comitatus Act] really did was to repeal a doctrine whose only substantial foundation was an opinion by an attorney general. ... The president’s power to use both regulars and militia remained undisturbed.”

Why Breyer is wrong

Judge Breyer’s ruling misreads both history and law. By treating Posse Comitatus as a blanket prohibition, he ignores the Constitution and the Insurrection Act. His injunction assumes any federal troop support is unlawful. But the law says otherwise: Troops cannot be used under lesser authority than the president’s. Trump acted as president. That is the highest authority the law contemplates.

The Ninth Circuit has already acknowledged the seriousness of the case by issuing a partial stay. That matters. Pulling remaining troops before the courts finish their review risks chaos. Keeping them in place while the appeal proceeds protects public order.

RELATED:A president’s job is to stop the burning if governors won’t

Photo by SAHAB ZARIBAF/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Prudence, not prohibition

The Posse Comitatus Act never emasculated the presidency. It preserved the president’s authority while removing soldiers from the clutches of local sheriffs. The only real limitation is prudence. Presidents must decide when the threat justifies force and when restraint serves the nation better.

I have opposed proposals to use the military in the so-called war on drugs and other ill-considered campaigns. Prudence matters. But the Constitution is clear: When federal law is under assault, the president can act.

The real danger comes not from Trump’s use of the National Guard, but from a judiciary willing to invent limits the Constitution never imposed. Los Angeles cannot be allowed to burn while mobs terrorize federal officers. The president has the duty to restore order.

That is why the administration is right to appeal. The courts should correct this error and reaffirm what the Constitution already guarantees: the president’s authority to protect the republic against domestic violence.

Why Trump’s Deployment Of The National Guard In California Was Perfectly Legal

The administration argues, correctly, that the Posse Comitatus Act didn’t apply to President Trump’s deployment of the Guard to California.

Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president



How much longer will Congress and the executive branch keep bowing to rogue judges?

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered the federal government to continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. She warned that cutting funding could cause women to “suffer adverse health consequences,” face more unintended pregnancies, and go without treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power.

Congress had already voted to end the funding. The law is on the books. It went through the full legislative process and was signed by the president. But Judge Talwani believes her opinion overrides all of that. She not only reinterpreted the law, she ordered the appropriation of funds to a private abortion business.

That crosses a major constitutional line.

Judges don’t have the power of the purse. They can’t spend money. They can’t fund private organizations. Only Congress can do that. Yet that core principle of the separation of powers now seems optional. We are left with a system where unelected judges act as legislators, executives, and arbiters — and no one challenges them.

Too many conservatives hesitate to confront this reality. They’ll cheer when Trump ignores Congress on TikTok but wring their hands when he considers defying an unlawful court ruling. But judicial opinions don’t carry binding force simply because a judge wrote them. Presidents and lawmakers swear the same oath to the Constitution as judges do. They don’t swear loyalty to the judiciary.

If a court orders the government to fund Planned Parenthood in direct defiance of a law passed by Congress, and the executive branch complies, then we no longer have a functioning constitutional system. We have a judiciary with a veto power over the other branches.

This didn’t start with Talwani’s ruling, and it won’t end here. Judges now routinely issue sweeping decisions that affect the entire country, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that supposedly reined in nationwide injunctions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito warned that lower courts would continue to defy precedent unless checked. They were right.

The time for deference is over. If Trump continues to honor every lawless edict from every federal judge, he only encourages more of the same. He entrenches the notion that judges make law and everyone else must obey.

RELATED: Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them

Prasong Maulae via iStock/Getty Images

Imagine Congress passes and Trump signs a reconciliation bill that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or Planned Parenthood funding. Under Judge Talwani’s logic, the courts could simply declare the law unconstitutional and order the executive branch to act against it — up to and including spending money Congress never appropriated. That’s not judicial review. That’s a judge acting like a one-woman super-legislature with a gavel and a god complex. Where does it end?

It never ends. Earlier this month, a judge in California ruled that ICE cannot carry out “roving” immigration enforcement in parts of the state’s Central Valley. The ruling lacked any constitutional basis. The judge simply decided too many illegal immigrants were being arrested and declared the enforcement itself a violation of rights — despite no evidence that a single American citizen had been wrongfully detained.

Rather than overturn the decision, the Ninth Circuit grilled government attorneys about whether ICE had an arrest quota. The implication was clear: Immigration enforcement itself is now suspect.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power. Congress holds the purse strings. The executive enforces the law. Judges interpret the law in individual cases. That’s the constitutional design.

Abraham Lincoln, in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, warned against treating court opinions as absolute. If citizens and lawmakers accept every ruling without question, Lincoln said, they prepare themselves to accept the next decision “without any inquiry.”

That mindset leads to tyranny. Not suddenly, but step by step.

The judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. It was designed that way. It has no army. It has no budget. Its legitimacy depends on its restraint. When judges cast that aside, the other branches must respond.

Otherwise, we will find ourselves governed not by the Constitution but by the whims of unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure.

If Trump does not confront the courts, we will be obliged to implement any rule from any judge who shares the same beliefs as Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d hate to see what the next decision looks like.

5 things Trump must do to fulfill his mass deportation mandate



Conservatives face a “use it or lose it” moment on immigration enforcement and deportations. They’ve never had a stronger case — or more support, even as public opinion flags — for aggressive removals. They have the rationale, the electoral mandate, and now the federal funding. If they fail to act, the left — and even Donald Trump, who’s already flirting with amnesty for non-criminal aliens — will seize the opportunity.

Their argument will go like this: “We tried your way. Mass deportation doesn’t work. Now we need a ‘legal pathway’ for those who haven’t committed serious crimes.” That’s the amnesty trap. To avoid it, conservatives must escalate interior enforcement — fast.

No more excuses. Immigration reform by reconciliation is possible — if the political will exists.

Illegal immigration remains a policy problem, not a funding problem. Throwing money at it won’t solve anything if the rules stay broken. Congress could pour $1 trillion into ICE operations, but if every removal gets litigated case by case, Trump’s second term will end before we even scratch the surface of Biden’s four-year importation binge.

Since February, ICE has averaged just 14,700 removals per month. That’s roughly 176,000 a year — or barely 700,000 over a full term. Even with increased arrests, that pace won’t clear the backlog of criminal aliens, let alone the 7.7 million undetained cases on ICE’s docket, the 8 to 10 million admitted under Biden, or the broader illegal population likely numbering in the tens of millions.

The system can’t even expel one known gang member — Kilmar Abrego Garcia — without months of delay. Instead of removing him, the Justice Department has been forced into court defending itself against claims that it “defied” a judge by taking too long to return him from El Salvador.

And that’s just one case. The Justice Department has also spent untold resources fighting Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil, who now walks free — and is suing the government for $22 million. Yes, Khalil held a green card. But that doesn’t give him a right to stay in the United States while openly supporting terrorism in violation of federal law.

Despite Supreme Court rulings aimed at narrowing judicial overreach, federal courts continue to block nearly every facet of immigration enforcement. Two weeks ago, a district judge in California effectively shut down most ICE operations in Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit declined to reverse the order.

That leaves no doubt: Even with the Supreme Court on record and billions in new appropriations to support removals, the system remains broken. If the Trump administration keeps obeying these court orders, something must change — and fast.

Here’s the danger: If deportations continue at a glacial pace and Democrats reclaim the House in 2027, Trump may throw in the towel. He’ll say, “Even I couldn’t make it work,” and cut a deal for amnesty, justifying it as the only realistic path forward. In effect, he’ll codify the de facto amnesty already in place.

So what should we do?

Strip jurisdiction in budget reconciliation 2.0

With Senate leaders floating another reconciliation bill, Trump should make judicial reform the centerpiece. The content, the campaign, the messaging — all of it must focus on dismantling judicial roadblocks to immigration enforcement.

Republicans won’t unify around cutting meaningful spending beyond the deal struck in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. So Trump should spend every ounce of his remaining political capital on something transformational: ending judicial sabotage of deportations.

He should demand that all removal orders for noncitizens — or at least non-green card holders — become final, with no Article III court review. That change alone would defund millions of court cases and carry a direct budgetary effect. In the same bill, Congress should block federal courts from reviewing state-based immigration laws, leaving the final word to state judiciaries.

Trump must not let Senate leadership hide behind procedural excuses like the Byrd Rule. We’ve already seen how easily they override it when they want to. During the last reconciliation debate, Trump and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) ignored the parliamentarian to push through their tax strategy.

To extend the 2017 tax cuts without scoring them as new spending, the GOP simply redefined “current policy” as “current law.” When Sen. Bernie Moreno (D-Ohio) presided over the chamber, he ruled the provision in order — without even consulting the parliamentarian, who would have almost certainly objected.

Trump should demand that same treatment now. No more excuses. Immigration reform by reconciliation is possible — if the political will exists.

Call in the Guard

Trump should also deploy the National Guard to support ICE and the Department of Homeland Security directly. Use them to build temporary detention facilities, assist in arrests, and provide operational security. If Antifa resumes its terror campaign, arrests will stall before they even reach the courtroom.

The Justice Department and FBI need to move aggressively to disrupt and prosecute the groups organizing these attacks. If left unchecked, they will shield the illegal population from enforcement and grind federal operations to a halt.

RELATED: What do you call 12 Antifa radicals in body armor?

Joko Yulianto via iStock/Getty Images

Establish a Homeland Security Reserve Corps

Former ICE official Dan Cadman has proposed forming a Homeland Security Reserve Corps composed of retired or former immigration enforcement officers. Trump should adopt the idea at once.

Rather than relying solely on new, untested agents — each bringing long-term benefit obligations — this reserve force would provide a cost-effective and experienced backup. Trained personnel could be rapidly deployed when enforcement surges, without the lag time of recruitment or training.

As Cadman put it, the reserve would cost less “to initiate and maintain ... than will be spent trying to fill out the ranks with newly minted but untested officers.” State and local law enforcement also offer a deep bench of willing partners.

Send them back by ship

Once legal and street-level interference is neutralized, the next hurdle becomes logistics. Deportations by commercial air remain expensive and inefficient.

Trump should leverage maritime resources — ships over planes. Water transport moves more people at less cost, and the federal government already controls the tools. The Navy, Coast Guard, FEMA, and the Department of Transportation all have assets that can scale removals quickly. There’s no reason not to use them.

Target identity theft

Illegal aliens don’t just trespass borders — they break laws to stay employed. Identity fraud, document forgery, and fake Social Security numbers keep the jobs magnet humming.

Rather than flirt with amnesty, Trump should target this criminal network directly. He should order the Social Security Administration to resume sending no-match letters to employers when an employee’s name doesn’t align with the Social Security number on file.

These letters would compel businesses to terminate ineligible workers and refer them to ICE. The effect would be swift and far-reaching.

The truth? Both parties have long ignored this problem because major donors want cheap labor. But if document fraud laws were enforced consistently, the jobs magnet would shut off — and self-deportation would surge.

If Trump continues lauding these workers as “impossible to replace,” he risks creating moral and political inertia. That narrative will lower enforcement morale and momentum, fueling the next bipartisan push for amnesty.

One thing is certain: Trump won’t get another shot at this mandate. If he fails to deliver on his promise, the amnesty lobby will claim permanent victory — and entrench it. The consequences won’t be temporary. They’ll shape immigration policy for a generation. We should all consider — and fear — what comes afterward.

This Supreme Court Is Woefully Weak On The Second Amendment

When firearms are involved, originalism is ignored and basic principles of statutory interpretation are overlooked.

9th Circuit: Local Authorities In Washington State Can’t Block Feds From Deporting Illegals

A three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government has the authority to deport illegal immigrants even if local leaders try to impede the process. The case arose after King County Executive Dow Constantine issued an executive order in 2019 that instructed county officials to prohibit “fixed base operators” […]

SCOTUS Rules Cities Can Enforce Bans On Homeless Encampments

The Supreme Court ruled in Grants Pass v. Johnson that cities can ban homeless encampments, denouncing previous rulings as legislating from the bench.

A Christian student athletic club was thrown off campus in California because of its traditional stance on marriage. Members fought back and won.



A Christian student athletic club in California was denigrated, protested, then thrown off campus in 2019 on account of its traditional views on marriage. When the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and student leaders' requests to have their club reinstated fell on deaf ears, they took legal action with the help of the religious liberty group Becket and the Christian Legal Society.

In a major upset for LGBT activists and other cultural imperialists in the San Jose Unified School District, a federal court delivered the evangelical FCA a decisive win Wednesday, ordering the reinstatement of its chapter at Pioneer High School.

Rigo Lopez, the local FCA leader for Bay Area schools, responded to the victory for religious liberty, stating, "FCA is excited to be able to get back to serving our campuses. ... Our FCA teams have long enjoyed strong relationships with teachers and students in the past, and we are looking forward to that again."

Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, said, "This is a huge win for these brave kids, who persevered through adversity and never took their eye off the ball: equal access with integrity."

"Today’s ruling ensures religious students are again treated fairly in San Jose and throughout California," added Blomberg.

No room for Christian beliefs

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes student club, founded in 1954, seeks to "lead every coach and athlete into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ and His church."

Despite meeting at San Jose Unified School District schools in California for over a decade without incident, the group was thrown off campus after a single social studies teacher at Pioneer High School denounced the organization during class time, claiming its views on marriage were "bulls***."

Peter Glasser, the teacher in question, had learned that while all students were welcome to participate in FCA events and to join its ranks, chapter leaders were required to affirm the group's statements of faith and sexual purity, reported the Washington Examiner.

Among the statements of faith, listed on the FCA's website, are the declarations that: the Bible is the word of God; there is "only one God who eternally exists in three persons"; Jesus Christ is God; and "acceptance of Jesus Christ and the corresponding renewal of the Holy Spirit is the only path to salvation."

The sexual purity statement required that leaders affirm that "sexual intimacy is to be expressed only within the context of marriage," defined as "exclusively the union of one man and one woman."

According to court documents, in April 2019, Glasser obtained these statements, posted them on the whiteboard in his first period class, and appended a note to them which read, "I am deeply saddened that a club on Pioneer's campus asks its members to affirm these statements. How do you feel?"

Extra to inviting criticism of Christian students' beliefs by other students, Glasser, who reportedly suggested the FCA's beliefs were tantamount to harassment, pressed principal Herb Espiritu to take action.

A school leadership committee, which included Glasser, met on April 30, 2019, determining the FCA's "pledge" clashed with the "core values" of the high school.

Espiritu brought the decision to the attention of SJUSD administrators, then two days later informed the student leaders of the Pioneer FCA that the district had stripped the group of its approval.

Within weeks, all three FCA student clubs in the district had been labeled as "discriminatory" and similarly booted off campus whilst identitarian groups, LGBT activist groups, and even the Satanic Temple Club remained unscathed, notwithstanding their own dogmatic views and rules.

Battle in the courts

Two students filed a lawsuit in April 2020, seeking to restore the club's equal access to meet on campus. A district court shut them down. They nevertheless persevered and appealed the decision.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Christian students' favor, concluding that the "plaintiffs [were] likely to succeed on their Free Exercise claims alleging that the defendants have selectively enforced their non-discrimination polices."

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's earlier denial of the FCA's motion for a preliminary injunction and directed the district court to order the group's reinstatement.

The San Jose Unified School District did not handle the decision well.

Rather than accept that it could no longer flout the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act by way of discriminating against the FCA's religious leadership standards, it shut down all student groups for the fall 2022 semester and appealed the decision.

Christian virtue prevails

On Jan. 18, 2023, the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case before a panel of eleven federal judges.

In a 9-2 decision issued Wednesday, the court killed perhaps the SJUSD's last hope of boxing out the Christian group, ruling that the FCA and other such clubs do not have to surrender on matters of faith to enjoy equal access to campus.

"The District, rather than treating (the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) like comparable secular student groups whose membership was limited based on criteria including sex, race, ethnicity and gender identity, penalized it based on its religious beliefs," said the ruling.

The court stressed that "[i]ndividual preferences based on certain characteristics and criteria serve important purposes for these groups"; that just as the "Senior Women club" can have all-female members and various honor clubs can require benchmarks pertaining to members' moral character, "it makes equal sense that a religious group be allowed to require that its leaders agree with the group's most fundamental beliefs."

In her opinion, Judge Consuelo María Callahan noted that while anti-discrimination policies "serve worthy causes ... those policies may not themselves be utilized in a manner that transgresses or supersedes the government's constitutional commitment to be steadfastly neutral to religion."

Accordingly, "[u]nder the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion and free speech, the government may not 'single out' religious groups 'for special disfavor' compared to similar secular groups," wrote Callahan.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest called the SJUSD's treatment of FCA student members "shocking and fundamentally at odds with bedrock principles that have guided our Republic since the beginning."

Concerning the FCA's win Wednesday, Steve McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said, "Public schools should respect every student's religious beliefs and treat every student with dignity. ... We are grateful the court has reaffirmed this foundational right of every student."

2022 FCA Presentationyoutu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Court Decision Puts Pressure on Biden to Reignite Gas Stove War

President Joe Biden is facing increased pressure to ban gas appliances after an appeals court struck down a California city's natural gas ban, a ruling that could imperil similar local policies should Biden fail to take federal action.

The post Court Decision Puts Pressure on Biden to Reignite Gas Stove War appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

FotoCuisinette/Getty Images

Federal court blocks California city's gas stove ban

A federal appeals court on Monday overturned a California city’s first-in-the-nation ban on natural gas hookups in new buildings, saying it violates federal law. The three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal sided with a coalition of California restaurants, who argued that the City of Berkeley’s ordinance essentially bans gas appliances in violation […]

The post Federal Court Blocks California City's Gas Stove Ban, Turning Up The Heat on Democrats appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.