Category: Federalism

Federalist Society Convention — National Guard in Cities

by · Nov 3, 2025 11:14 am

The Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention is this week, Thursday through Saturday. It is being held at the Washington Hilton, having outgrown its traditional venue at the Mayflower Hotel. Many of the panels will be live-streamed for free.

Update 11/21: The panel recordings were offline for a time while they cleaned up the audio. The are accessible once again.

The panel for the Criminal Law Practice Group is “Crime, Cities, and the Guard: The Legal and Policy Dimensions of Domestic Troop Deployment.” Cully Stimson of the Heritage Foundation is on the panel. Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones is the moderator. The scheduled time is 3:45-5:00 EST pm Thursday, 12:45-2:00 pm PST.

Continue reading . . .

Walters: Newsom Delusional on Cal. Mask Law

by · Sep 24, 2025 11:35 am

Dan Walters has this column at CalMatters on California Governor Newsom, masked ICE officers, and the recently enacted state statute on masking. “Newsom and any other critics of ICE tactics are delusional if they believe federal officers will be arrested and prosecuted for wearing masks after SB 627 takes effect.” The column headline, probably written by an editor and not by Walters, is oddly equivocal: “Court rulings cast doubt on California mask ban for federal officers.” Walters doesn’t say the ban is in doubt. He says there is no way it will be enforced. Continue reading . . .

Guardsmen as Cops

by · Sep 22, 2025 12:59 pm

Barry Latzer and Peter Moskos have this article in the National Review. Sending in the National Guard for law enforcement has some benefits, but it is not an optimum solution.

But there are limits to what soldiers can do.

First, troops do not have police powers and cannot enforce laws or arrest lawbreakers. They are not trained in the chain-of-custody protocols needed for evidence preservation. Nor can they do the detective work needed to track down suspects.

Second, national guardsmen cannot prepare a case for the prosecutor. This is a vital job for which the police have training. Cops are taught how to interview victims and other witnesses, gather physical evidence, and preserve the chain of custody, and then testify in court to help obtain a conviction. Soldiers can’t do this, and without convictions, offenders cannot be sentenced and incarcerated for their crimes.

Continue reading . . .

Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction Against Cal. Guard Federalization

by · Jun 20, 2025 7:31 am

In previous posts, I discussed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s suit against President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard to deal with the Los Angeles riots, the district court’s temporary restraining order, and the court of appeals’s immediate short-term administrative stay.

Yesterday, despite being a federal holiday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s TRO for the duration of the appeal. In circumstances such as this, the stay pending appeal may be the whole ball game. If order is restored and the federalization rescinded before the actual decision of the appeal, the appeal may very well be dismissed as moot.

The panel was not too worried about the point that I considered the weakest element of the President’s case, the requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 that the orders be issued through the state governor.

Continue reading . . .

Guard Federalization TRO Issued, Stayed

by · Jun 13, 2025 9:07 am

Following up on yesterday’s post, District Judge Charles Breyer granted California a temporary restraining order against the federalization of the National Guard. The federal government filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit. That court stayed the TRO temporary and set briefing on a very fast track. The state’s opposition is due Sunday at 9:00 a.m., the fed’s reply is due Monday at the same time, and argument is Tuesday at noon. (All times PDT.) Continue reading . . .

Federalizing the National Guard in California Over the Governor’s Objection

by · Jun 12, 2025 11:36 am

On June 9, California Governor Gavin Newsom sued President Trump over the President’s directive to federalize units of the California National Guard and deploy units of the Marine Corps to Los Angeles to protect immigration officers and facilities and enable them to enforce federal immigration law. The suit claims that these actions are not authorized by the federal statute cited for them and that they violate the post-Reconstruction Posse Comitatus Act.

On its face, the complaint does seem to have some merit under the statute cited in President Trump’s memorandum, but there are other statutes that he could have invoked that are not subject to the same objection. On consideration of those other statutes, this appears to be the kind of issue that calls for maximum deference to presidential authority. Continue reading . . .

Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty, Again

by · Jun 9, 2025 8:33 am

Should people with intellectual disability be exempt from capital punishment? If so, who decides where and how to draw the line? The U.S. Supreme Court opened a can of worms with its 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia that a categorical exemption is constitutionally required. Last Friday* the court decided to look into this can once again, taking up the case of Alabama murderer Joseph Smith. The case is Hamm v. Smith, No. 24-872.

When the Supreme Court announced its decision 23 years ago, it seemed to be constitutionalizing only the yes-or-no decision, leaving the line-drawing to the states. Even while making a dubious finding of consensus on the categorical exemption, the court acknowledged disagreement on how to draw the line. Quoting an earlier decision forbidding execution of insane persons, the opinion said, “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.”

This holding of Atkins was effectively overruled by later decisions. In the Smith case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has told Alabama it is drawing the line wrong. There are two problems. First, how do you determine the possible range of someone’s “true IQ” when he has multiple test scores? Second, can we declare a person intellectually disabled even though the probability that his true IQ is below 70 is vanishingly small?

Looming over these two questions is a larger question. Do the questions above have right and wrong answers as a matter of federal constitutional law, or should the Supreme Court return to honoring its long-ago, much-violated promise in Atkins that the states would have leeway in these matters? Continue reading . . .

Fraud Without Financial Injury

by · May 22, 2025 8:54 am

If a liar lies to induce someone into a deal and the other person suffers no monetary loss, is it still a fraud? Yes, under the federal “wire fraud” statute, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today in Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909. The high court was unanimous as to that basic rule, but there were some disagreements on scope and the underlying issue in the fraudulent inducement.

The Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation needed some restoration work done, and the federal government was picking up part of the tab. Federal regulations required a “disadvantaged-business program.” Kousisis represented that he would obtain painting supplies from a “disadvantaged” business, but that business was just a pass-through that got paid a fee for processing paperwork for supplies actually purchased elsewhere.

So PennDOT got the services it paid for, but it didn’t get the boost to supposedly disadvantaged business that was expressly made a material term of the contract. Is that fraud? Of course. Regardless of what one thinks of such clauses in government contracts, it was part of the deal. In order to get money, Kousisis made a fraudulent inducement on a term that was material to the other party, and that is all the law requires.

So where is the disagreement? Continue reading . . .

Enjoining State Prosecutions in Federal Court

by · May 15, 2025 10:32 am

After the Texas Attorney General gave Yelp, Inc. notice of intent to file a quasi-criminal enforcement suit against it, Yelp went yelping to the federal district court in San Francisco for an injunction against the enforcement.

Can they do that? No, said the district judge, and today a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. This isn’t a new rule. It’s an old case called Younger.

Over 55 years ago, a federal district court enjoined a prosecution in California state court. The Los Angeles District Attorney (and future California Attorney General) Evelle Younger, took it all the way to the Supreme Court. In Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the high court established a general rule that federal courts should abstain from using their injunctive powers against prosecutions in state courts. Federal-law defenses must generally be asserted in the state court. There is an exception for bad faith prosecutions.

First Amendment defenses generally are not an exception. Younger itself was such a case. Yelp did not succeed in showing bad faith here. Continue reading . . .

USCA9 Strikes Down Cal. Ban of Federal Private Prisons

by · Sep 27, 2022 10:59 am

State laws interfering with federal government operations within the state present a constitutional problem that goes back to the early days of the republic. In the early nineteenth century, the Bank of the United States was very controversial, and the State of Maryland tried to kill it with a discriminatory tax. The Supreme Court declared the tax unconstitutional in a landmark decision by Chief Justice Marshall, M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Within California, immigration enforcement efforts are highly controversial, particularly in the prior Administration. Privately operated prisons are also very controversial. The state can, of course, choose not to use such prisons itself. However, the California Legislature in 2019 enacted AB 32, barring any person from operating a private prison. In essence, they barred federal contractors from continuing to provide services they had long provided to the federal government. Continue reading . . .