Still, it would be interesting to see what the Space Force nerds think they could do.<\/p>\n
But Trump v. United States<\/em> aside, the executive branch isn\u2019t entirely without legal recourse. The Insurrection Act of 1807 provides an exception to this restriction, allowing the president the power to call upon the military under defined, limited circumstances. It\u2019s an incredibly rare and radical executive action that is not tripped by an inflatable frog costume twerking outside an ICE facility. Nonetheless, Donald Trump is leaking to anyone willing to reprint it that he\u2019s very \u201cclose\u201d to invoking the Insurrection Act.<\/p>\n The media has an obligation to the public to stress how abnormal and legally unjustified an Insurrection Act occupation of America\u2019s cities would be. Unfortunately, we get this instead.<\/a><\/p>\n George Stephanopoulos looks like a fool after a young lady fact-checks his statement about the Insurrection Actpic.twitter.com\/pcNyz4FNME<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Defiant L\u2019s (@DefiantLs) October 13, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n That\u2019s Sarah Isgur, the former spokesperson for the Jeff Sessions DOJ, explaining that invoking the Insurrection Act is totally normal. Despite the thrust of the retweeting account, Isgur actually IS NOT saying that the Insurrection Act is cool. The MAGA fans clicking to see Stephanopoulos look \u201clike a fool,\u201d probably didn\u2019t stick around for her conclusion that the Insurrection Act should have been amended years ago to set stricter standards. An interesting academic question maybe, but deeply misleading. Whether the Insurrection Act could stand a rewrite doesn\u2019t change the fact that Donald Trump sending troops into Illinois or Oregon over the objections of their governors is illegal right now<\/em>!<\/p>\n \u201cNearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act during their terms,\u201d the Harvard Law-educated Isgur explains falsely. In total, 16 of the 45 presidents (remembering that Trump 47 and Cleveland 24 were performing encore acts) have invoked the Insurrection Act, coming in at around 35 percent, rendering \u201cnearly<\/em> half\u201d an extreme act of adverbial violence upon the both math and the English language.<\/p>\n George Stephanopolous, interjects to add \u201cnot over the objection of governors.\u201d Stephanopolous, who recently saw his network settle a defamation claim for $15 million<\/a> after he said Trump was civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll as opposed to civilly liable for calling Carroll a liar when she said he raped her, clearly understands the value of being hypertechnically correct. <\/p>\n Isgur, however, pushes back \u201cAbsolutely! Think about Eisenhower at Little Rock.\u201d And while Ike did act over the objections of the Arkansas governor, when she\u2019s arguing that it\u2019s totally normal to use the Insurrection Act this way, \u201cremember they did it once 70 years ago,\u201d is not the flex she thinks it is. For what it\u2019s worth, Kennedy also slightly more recently called upon the Act over a state government\u2019s objections. It has not happened since. <\/p>\n To put in perspective how long ago that was, when it last happened over a governor\u2019s objection, people heard the name Kennedy and did not think \u201cbrainworm-addled lunatic.\u201d<\/p>\n The Eisenhower comparison is also inapposite. The Insurrection Act authorizes three exceptions to the bar on deploying an occupying army within the United States. First, as Stephanopolous flags, a request from state government. Second, where people are deprived of constitutionally secured rights that the state fails or refuses to protect \u2014 the justification Ike and JFK operated under. And third, where it is \u201cimpracticable to enforce the law.\u201d <\/p>\n Trump is, at best, aiming for the final justification by claiming that Portland is on fire, instead of a hipster enclave far too obsessed with Pinot Noir. But it\u2019s still<\/em> not sufficient to say, \u201cprotesting furries have made our ICE officers feel bad.\u201d The text of the relevant statute<\/a> contextualizes \u201cimpracticable to enforce the law\u201d as an inability to operate \u201cby the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.\u201d There is no claim that Trump can\u2019t enforce immigration laws and process the folks ICE rounds up through ordinary legal process. The fact that he\u2019s losing<\/em> cases doesn\u2019t transform them from \u201cthe ordinary course of judicial proceedings.\u201d <\/p>\n Oh, and if Trump were to invoke the Act anyway, the real<\/em> culprit, she explains, is Joe Biden<\/em> for not fixing this first. Deferring responsibility, for the win! Sure it\u2019s been on the books as illegal since the 19th century, but this isn\u2019t Trump\u2019s fault for doing it, it\u2019s on the Democrats who didn\u2019t make it MORE CLEAR that it\u2019s illegal!<\/em><\/p>\n There is no statutory justification for invoking the Insurrection Act right now. Full stop. <\/p>\n It\u2019s not \u201ca close question,\u201d or \u201ca debate,\u201d or \u201ca reason to revisit the language,\u201d it\u2019s just not legal under any serious reading of the text. When historians collect the receipts, they\u2019re not going to distinguish the martial law cheerleaders from the folks staking out the \u201cthis may not be a good idea, but it\u2019s legal\u201d position. If anything, the latter is more dangerous because the fate of the Republic isn\u2019t turning on the hardcore partisans, but will lean on the sort of people Isgur\u2019s telling to shrug and blame Biden. <\/p>\n These \u201cI\u2019m personally not happy, but\u2026\u201d talking points might earn a social pardon at a DC cocktail party, but in the final equation, it\u2019s still sanewashing the idea that the White House can legally deploy troops to occupy American cities.<\/p>\n The post TV Legal Analyst Begins Sanewashing Trump Declaring Martial Law<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Sending the military to engage in domestic law enforcement operations is, to be clear, not something the White House just gets to do because Donald Trump hates Chicago. While America has long hoped to stop the scourge of deep dish pizza from infecting the nation\u2019s strip malls, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 protects Pizzeria Uno from federal drone attacks.<\/p>\n That law<\/a> dictates \u2014 as amended \u2014 \u201cWhoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.\u201d Trump v. United States<\/em> has, probably, rendered this law constitutionally unenforceable. Since the conservative justices proactively resolved the president of criminal liability for willfully using Navy SEALs to murder his political rivals, it\u2019s hard to believe they\u2019d stop the military from being deployed against average citizens. <\/p>\n Still, it would be interesting to see what the Space Force nerds think they could do.<\/p>\n But Trump v. United States<\/em> aside, the executive branch isn\u2019t entirely without legal recourse. The Insurrection Act of 1807 provides an exception to this restriction, allowing the president the power to call upon the military under defined, limited circumstances. It\u2019s an incredibly rare and radical executive action that is not tripped by an inflatable frog costume twerking outside an ICE facility. Nonetheless, Donald Trump is leaking to anyone willing to reprint it that he\u2019s very \u201cclose\u201d to invoking the Insurrection Act.<\/p>\n The media has an obligation to the public to stress how abnormal and legally unjustified an Insurrection Act occupation of America\u2019s cities would be. Unfortunately, we get this instead.<\/a><\/p>\n That\u2019s Sarah Isgur, the former spokesperson for the Jeff Sessions DOJ, explaining that invoking the Insurrection Act is totally normal. Despite the thrust of the retweeting account, Isgur actually IS NOT saying that the Insurrection Act is cool. The MAGA fans clicking to see Stephanopoulos look \u201clike a fool,\u201d probably didn\u2019t stick around for her conclusion that the Insurrection Act should have been amended years ago to set stricter standards. An interesting academic question maybe, but deeply misleading. Whether the Insurrection Act could stand a rewrite doesn\u2019t change the fact that Donald Trump sending troops into Illinois or Oregon over the objections of their governors is illegal right now<\/em>!<\/p>\n \u201cNearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act during their terms,\u201d the Harvard Law-educated Isgur explains falsely. In total, 16 of the 45 presidents (remembering that Trump 47 and Cleveland 24 were performing encore acts) have invoked the Insurrection Act, coming in at around 35 percent, rendering \u201cnearly<\/em> half\u201d an extreme act of adverbial violence upon the both math and the English language.<\/p>\n George Stephanopolous, interjects to add \u201cnot over the objection of governors.\u201d Stephanopolous, who recently saw his network settle a defamation claim for $15 million<\/a> after he said Trump was civilly liable for raping E. Jean Carroll as opposed to civilly liable for calling Carroll a liar when she said he raped her, clearly understands the value of being hypertechnically correct. <\/p>\n Isgur, however, pushes back \u201cAbsolutely! Think about Eisenhower at Little Rock.\u201d And while Ike did act over the objections of the Arkansas governor, when she\u2019s arguing that it\u2019s totally normal to use the Insurrection Act this way, \u201cremember they did it once 70 years ago,\u201d is not the flex she thinks it is. For what it\u2019s worth, Kennedy also slightly more recently called upon the Act over a state government\u2019s objections. It has not happened since. <\/p>\n To put in perspective how long ago that was, when it last happened over a governor\u2019s objection, people heard the name Kennedy and did not think \u201cbrainworm-addled lunatic.\u201d<\/p>\n The Eisenhower comparison is also inapposite. The Insurrection Act authorizes three exceptions to the bar on deploying an occupying army within the United States. First, as Stephanopolous flags, a request from state government. Second, where people are deprived of constitutionally secured rights that the state fails or refuses to protect \u2014 the justification Ike and JFK operated under. And third, where it is \u201cimpracticable to enforce the law.\u201d <\/p>\n Trump is, at best, aiming for the final justification by claiming that Portland is on fire, instead of a hipster enclave far too obsessed with Pinot Noir. But it\u2019s still<\/em> not sufficient to say, \u201cprotesting furries have made our ICE officers feel bad.\u201d The text of the relevant statute<\/a> contextualizes \u201cimpracticable to enforce the law\u201d as an inability to operate \u201cby the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.\u201d There is no claim that Trump can\u2019t enforce immigration laws and process the folks ICE rounds up through ordinary legal process. The fact that he\u2019s losing<\/em> cases doesn\u2019t transform them from \u201cthe ordinary course of judicial proceedings.\u201d <\/p>\n Oh, and if Trump were to invoke the Act anyway, the real<\/em> culprit, she explains, is Joe Biden<\/em> for not fixing this first. Deferring responsibility, for the win! Sure it\u2019s been on the books as illegal since the 19th century, but this isn\u2019t Trump\u2019s fault for doing it, it\u2019s on the Democrats who didn\u2019t make it MORE CLEAR that it\u2019s illegal!<\/em><\/p>\n There is no statutory justification for invoking the Insurrection Act right now. Full stop. <\/p>\n It\u2019s not \u201ca close question,\u201d or \u201ca debate,\u201d or \u201ca reason to revisit the language,\u201d it\u2019s just not legal under any serious reading of the text. When historians collect the receipts, they\u2019re not going to distinguish the martial law cheerleaders from the folks staking out the \u201cthis may not be a good idea, but it\u2019s legal\u201d position. If anything, the latter is more dangerous because the fate of the Republic isn\u2019t turning on the hardcore partisans, but will lean on the sort of people Isgur\u2019s telling to shrug and blame Biden. <\/p>\n These \u201cI\u2019m personally not happy, but\u2026\u201d talking points might earn a social pardon at a DC cocktail party, but in the final equation, it\u2019s still sanewashing the idea that the White House can legally deploy troops to occupy American cities.<\/p>\n Sending the military to engage in domestic law enforcement operations is, to be clear, not something the White House just gets to do because Donald Trump hates Chicago. While America has long hoped to stop the scourge of deep dish pizza from infecting the nation\u2019s strip malls, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 protects Pizzeria […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135191\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=188%2C125&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/09\/GettyImages-2220049789-300x200.jpg?resize=300%2C200&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=189%2C126&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"