US Supreme Court ruling raises stakes on Trump’s deployment of troops to Democratic-held cities – Rezazade

The US Supreme Court’s decision on the use of the National Guard in “blue” cities was not just a legal nuance, but a potential catalyst for a dangerous escalation in domestic politics in the United States.

In effect, the court avoided a direct answer to the question of whether President Donald Trump’s actions to militarize law enforcement were justified, but at the same time opened the door to even more radical scenarios.

Lower federal courts have long considered whether the situation in cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland really made the federal government “unable” to enforce the laws without involving the National Guard. The Trump administration insisted that resistance to deportation policies had reached such a level that civilian law enforcement agencies could no longer cope.

However, the Supreme Court took a different path. It declared the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago illegal, based on the interpretation of the concept of “regular forces”. The judges concluded that in the context of the legislation of the early 20th century, it is not about civilian law enforcement agencies, but about the regular US army. Thus, the president can involve the National Guard only if even regular military forces are unable to ensure the implementation of the laws. At the same time, the court itself emphasized that the use of the army for internal law and order is an “exceptional” measure.

International expert and first vice president of the Iranian opposition in Washington, Ali Reza Rezazade, believes that this decision creates a paradoxical and dangerous logic. “Formally, the court has limited the president, but in fact it is pushing the White House to take an even tougher step - direct use of the regular army or appeal to the Insurrection Act,” the expert notes.

According to Rezazade, the Supreme Court deliberately avoided a politically toxic question: whether opposition to Trump’s immigration policy can be considered a form of rebellion. “The judges hid behind the law, but by doing so they left open the main question — where is the line between civil protests and an ‘insurrection’ that allows the introduction of troops,” he emphasizes.

The expert recalls that the Trump administration has previously hinted at the possibility of using the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to use a regular army inside the country. “If the White House starts labeling the unrest in ‘blue’ cities as an uprising, the Supreme Court will sooner or later have to give a direct answer. And this will be a much more difficult decision than a technical interpretation of the terms,” Rezazade believes.

In his opinion, the situation has a much broader dimension than the domestic American one. “We see how in a country with the most powerful democratic tradition in the world the line between civil law and order and military force is blurring. This sets a dangerous precedent that authoritarian regimes are closely watching,” the expert emphasizes.

Rezazade summarizes that the Supreme Court’s decision did not relieve tension, but only postponed the inevitable. “Either Washington will reconsider its course towards militarizing domestic politics, or the next step will be the direct use of the army. And then the question will be not only about immigration, but about the very foundations of the American constitutional system,” he concludes.