Over the previous week, thousands of National Guard troops from states throughout the nation arrived in Washington, D.C., as part of the Trump administration's response to the largely peaceful demonstrations taking place throughout the city. After a lot of controversy– including an argument over and whether troops were supposedly kicked out of their hotels by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser– they have actually now departed back to their home states. But under what legal authority were they deployed to D.C. in the very first place? The answer was not apparent, and the administration at first stayed quiet regarding its reasoning. Now, in a letter to D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Attorney General William Barr has cleaned up that mystery, explaining that the out-of-state National Guard troops existed under the authority of 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). In resolving one secret, nevertheless, Barr uncovered numerous more. One of two things holds true: Either § 502 (f)does not authorize making use of out-of-state National Guard soldiers in the manner in which they were deployed in Washington recently, or it does– and is therefore an amazingly broad authorization for the president to use the military at any time and for any reason, consisting of as a backdoor around the Posse Comitatus Act. Basically, either Barr is wrong, or he's right– in which case Congress must instantly close the loophole he's identified(and, obviously, seized upon ). When on responsibility, state National Guard troops can use 3 various” hats.”The very first, and most typical, is” State Active Duty “(SAD)status, in which they are exercising state functions at the demand of the state government, and are typically governed by state law. For instance, when Minnesota Governor Tim Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard to help restore order in Minneapolis in the middle of the protests and violence developing from the murder of George Floyd, those troops were there in their SAD capacity. This very first “hat” is frequently referred to as “Title 32” status (a recommendation to that part of the U.S. Code that handles the National Guard), however that's inaccurate. “Title 32” status is actually the 2nd “hat,” pursuant to which the state National Guard troops stay subject to state command and control, but are used for federal objectives licensed by Congress– and, perhaps most significantly, are generally paid for by the federal government.
Lastly, the third hat, “Title 10” status, is when state National Guard systems are “federalized” by the president of the United States pursuant to among the particular statutory authorities for doing so. As soon as federalized, National Guard soldiers come under the full command and control of the Pentagon– specifically the Secretary of Defense. In essence, National Guard troops become part of the federal military till and unless they are returned to state status.
These distinctions matter for a number of factors, including which government pays for the soldiers, which government can be held liable if something fails, which military justice system applies to penalize misbehavior, and what the National Guard soldiers can be entrusted to do. To take one particularly significant example, it's long been comprehended that the Posse Comitatus Act(which forbids”us [ing] any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws”) does not apply to National Guard systems in either SAD or Title 32 status, due to the fact that they are not, at that point, part of the Army or the Air Force. On the other hand, when National Guard troops are federalized, the Posse Comitatus Act does apply– and needs “express  statutory authorization prior to those troops can be utilized to “perform the laws.” To be sure, in scenarios in which both federal troops and un-federalized National Guard systems are released, Congress in 2008 authorized the consultation of “Dual Status Commanders,” however only to enhance coordination– not to blur the different hierarchies.
The only exception to this structure is the D.C. National Guard. Although 4 of the six federal areas have National Guards (all however American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), the National Guards for Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are commanded by the territorial governors. D.C.'s Guard, on the other hand, is always at the command and control of the president of the United States– a minimum of in part because the Guard precedes the development of the D.C. city government in the early 1970s. Hence, it took no special authority for the president to activate the D.C. National Guard in response to the condition in Washington last week.
The D.C. National Guard, however, is quite small. Obviously, throughout the protests, the federal government decided that it needed to be enhanced by out-of-state soldiers. One path would have been for Mayor Bowser herself to request help under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), an interstate compact to which all 50 states and the District of Columbia are parties, and which Congress validated in 1996. However that didn't take place. So by what authority did the president use soldiers from other states' National Guards for the very same purpose? The (belated) answer, according to the attorney general, is 32 U.S.C. § 502 (f ). Here is the relevant text of that arrangement: (f )(1 )Under regulations to be recommended by the Secretary of the Army or Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, a member of the National Guard
might– (A)without his approval, but with the pay and allowances provided by law
; or(B)with his approval, either with or without pay and allowances; be purchased to perform training or other duty in addition to that prescribed under subsection(a )[ N.B. § 502( a)speaks only to training]
( 2) The training or responsibility bought to be carried out under paragraph (1) may include the following:
(A) Support of operations or missions carried out by the member's system at the demand of the President or Secretary of Defense.
I've emphasized the important text. Whereas § 502(f)is mainly about training, it appears to license usage of state National Guard troops, in their Title 32 status, for any”operations or missions carried out … at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense.”This arrangement was contributed to § 502 in the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act , the legislative history of which is rather less than clear as to its function and scope. And the regulations promulgated under § 502(f)(1)do not appear to provide any additional lighting.(The Army's 2018 Domestic Operational Law Handbook is a bit more informative, but not regarding using § 502 (f )like this.) The 2 things that are clear, in context, are that(1)the provision is voluntary(leaving it approximately individual governors whether to offer the asked for support); and (2)any National Guard soldiers so triggered would be in Title 32 status– indicating that they would remain under the command and control of
the state, not the federal government. Let's go back to recently in D.C. It's still not entirely clear exactly what works the out-of-state National Guard systems were performing (which is bothersome enough in its own right). Barr's letter to Bowser lists a host of law enforcement-like tasks, consisting of “crowd control, temporary detention, brief search, determines to ensure the security of individuals on the residential or commercial property, and facility of security perimeters,” to name a few. However by all accounts, they were answering not just to state authorities, however– straight or indirectly– to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, also. Certainly, as the Washington Post
reported, Esper himself eventually “purchased”the out-of-state National Guard troops in D.C. not to use firearms or ammo without seeking advice from the White House– a relocation that almost got him fired. That Esper was even in a position to provide such an”order”to state National Guard troops in Title 32 status is precisely where this becomes an issue, for it blurs the critical difference between Title 32 status and Title 10 status. (As Barr's letter notes, it was the President who directed the out-of-state National Guard units to go home, strengthening the look of federal control.) The federal government might be spending for the implementation (and the liability) in any case, but such blurring raises complicated concerns about which federal government would be liable if anything failed, and, even more significantly, whether these National Guard soldiers went through the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act. Indeed, § 502 (f)might be absolutely uncontroversial when used the way it was meant, with states just choosing to support preexisting federal missions with local troops that stay under the guvs ‘command. However when the federal government gains the capability to control a mate of( potentially armed )soldiers without the constraints of laws like the Posse Comitatus Act, that looks like a really different matter completely– and one Congress might well not have meant, at least to this degree, when it passed the pertinent provision in 2006.
Moreover, whereas the president has special authority over the D.C. National Guard and, according to the Office of Legal Counsel (in a viewpoint by then-Assistant Attorney General William H. Rehnquist), unique power to utilize federal troops to protect versus the impairment of federal government functions, the authority Barr identified is not from another location pegged to D.C.'s unique territorial status. Put another method, the authority the government is declaring here might've been exercised anywhere– consisting of to send one state's un-federalized National Guard into another state without that state's authorization.
Beyond those legal concerns, there's something perhaps much more troubling in trusting this sort of ersatz Title 10 status. When the president federalizes National Guard soldiers, he can choose whichever systems he needs for the mission. Under § 502(f), nevertheless, the president does not have this high-end: rather, he's left to the voluntary assistance of those states that choose to assist him. And with regard to the use of out-of-state National Guard units in Washington, maybe it's no surprise that, of the 11 states that, per public reports, appear to have sent troops to Washington, 10 have Republican guvs. On the other hand, Democratic guvs in at least five states were asked to send out troops and refused. In other words, it's not just that this use of § 502(f)somehow allowed the federal government to work out command and control over state National Guard soldiers in Title 32 status; it's that it was overwhelmingly soldiers from red states– those who desired to support the President's politically questionable mission– not blue states. It shouldn't take much to see why that's a threatening precedent to set. Ultimately, one of 2 things holds true: Either § 502(f)does permit the federal government to utilize out-of-state National Guard troops as it did recently in Washington– for any function and under federal control– which is deeply worrying and crying out for some kind of legal reform. Or it does not, and upwards of 5,000 out-of-state National Guard troops were unlawfully released to Washington recently. Either answer is upsetting, to state the least. Correction: An earlier version of this piece misstated the chain of command for federalized National Guard systems. Federalized National Guard soldiers are under the command of the Secretary of Defense, instead of the secretaries of the particular services.Source: lawfareblog.com