Monthly Archive: December 2025

Supreme Court Refuses to Lift Bar on President Using National Guard in Illinois

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a brief decision in Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443. The Court held that 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) does not authorize the President to federalize the Illinois National Guard for the purpose of protecting federal personnel and property in Illinois.

I noted in this post some problems with that particular statute, including its requirement that orders be issued through the state governor. The Supreme Court’s decision focuses on a different aspect of the statute, the condition that “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” Today’s opinion holds that the reference to “regular forces” limits the statute to laws that the military can enforce, and those are few and far between given the Posse Comitatus Act.

My previous post noted that using military forces to enforce laws in recalcitrant states is better done under one of the surviving remnants of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

As is common in these summary cases, the opinion of the court is brief and not designated as authored by any justice. Continue reading . . .

Meese Institute at AAF

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III is a long-time friend and advisor to CJLF. His namesake legal institute has long been part of the Heritage Foundation, but he has announced a new one at Advancing American Freedom, an organization headed by former Vice President Mike Pence. AAF’s press release quotes Mr. Meese:

I am proud to announce Advancing American Freedom as the home for the new Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law. AAF has already established itself as a leader in the conservative movement.

I am confident that the lawyers and staff in the Meese Institute will continue to play a leading role in advancing the conservative legal movement in terms of their scholarship, and by working with allies to achieve our mutual objectives, educating the general public about important legal issues, helping to train the next generation of conservative lawyers, and defending the Constitution and rule of law.

The WSJ has this article. Continue reading . . .

Judge Who Helped Illegal Alien Escape From ICE Convicted

A Milwaukee Judge has been convicted of felony obstruction for letting an illegal alien out the back door of her courtroom to prevent federal immigration agents from arresting him. Harold Hutchison of Liberty Unyielding reports that a jury returned the guilty verdict Thursday against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan after a four day trial. ICE agents sought to apprehend the illegal immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, after a hearing on a battery charge in front of Judge Dugan last April, the Associated Press reported. Flores-Ruiz was captured by the ICE agents following a foot chase.

Continue reading . . .

Virginia legislation could release dangerous murderers and tie the hands of the parole board

In the wake of the November election, with the governor’s veto threat removed, the Virginia legislature is proceeding to pass California-style legislation that takes soft-on-crime to new levels. Hans Bader has this post with the above title at Liberty Unyielding.

In a nutshell, the bill would make the crime that a prison inmate committed irrelevant to the parole decision for those inmates who were under 18 at the time they committed major felonies. Continue reading . . .

SCOTUS Monday

Today’s big SCOTUS news is the oral argument over whether Congress can prevent the President from firing officials of independent agencies. This has been a big debate in constitutional law going back at least as far as the administration of President Andrew Johnson (1865-1869). Update: Most observers of the argument expect the Administration position to prevail. See, e.g., this article in the WSJ.

There is far less action in criminal law. The court’s orders list today took no new cases, criminal or civil. Last Friday, the court issued a short list taking up four cases. The most newsworthy of these is the civil case on how broadly to construe the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” In particular, which children born to noncitizen parents are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Continue reading . . .