Key takeaways

• The Ninth Circuit lets the White House send National Guard troops to Portland
• Former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner warns this expands presidential power
• He fears the Supreme Court may grant Trump unchecked military control
• A new fight over presidential power could reshape American democracy

Why This Ruling Matters for Presidential Power

On Monday, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals paused a lower court order. That order had blocked the administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland. Now federal troops can guard federal property there. In Portland, officials had called the city “war ravaged.” Meanwhile, protesters and local leaders had asked them to leave.

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner discussed the ruling on The Legal Breakdown with progressive YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen. He issued a dire warning about how this decision may shift presidential power in dangerous ways. He said it might end up before the Supreme Court. Then, he fears, “the fireworks might begin.”

Background of the Court Decision

Earlier this year, a lower court ruled the president lacked authority to send troops inside a state. That decision aimed to protect states’ rights under the Constitution. However, the three-judge panel put the lower court’s order on hold. Consequently, the administration can now place National Guard troops in Portland once more.

Because of this stay, troops may guard federal buildings, bridges, and courthouses. In addition, they can assist local police with crowd control. City leaders warned that military forces could inflame tensions. On the other hand, supporters claim troops will restore order.

Kirschner’s Main Warning

Kirschner explained his fear in clear terms. He said his worst nightmare is that the Supreme Court will let Donald Trump expand his power forever. “In Trump v. United States, the justices gave him absolute immunity from prosecution,” Kirschner noted. “They made him a kind of king in criminal law.”

He then turned to the military front. “I fear where they’re going next is to make him supreme leader,” he said. This, he believes, would put the president above any checks on how he uses troops. “He could deploy any military or state Guard force without question.”

Potential Appeal to the Supreme Court

Kirschner predicts the administration will challenge the Ninth Circuit’s stay. Then the case could head to the Supreme Court. There, he worries, justices may back the president again. He thinks they might declare the commander-in-chief’s orders immune from review.

If the high court agrees, it would be the second major ruling to widen presidential defenses. First came immunity in criminal cases. Next could be absolute control over troop deployment. In that scenario, no court could block orders to send forces into states.

Why It Could Matter

Such a decision would reshape the balance of power in Washington. Currently, Congress can limit troop deployments under the Constitution’s checks and balances. Also, courts can intervene if the president acts illegally. However, if courts surrender their oversight, nothing could stop unchecked military action.

Transitioning from legal theory to real life, Kirschner warns of dire consequences. He said, “We might face a tight spot we can’t get out of.” In his view, America could drift toward a form of military dictatorship.

What Could Come Next

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, oral arguments could happen early next term. Then, a ruling might arrive by summer. At that point, we will see whether the court will curb or confirm expanded presidential power.

Meanwhile, Congress could step in. Some lawmakers are already drafting bills to restrict military force at home. They aim to restore limits on sending troops into cities without clear threats. However, passing such laws in a divided Congress may prove difficult.

Public Reaction and Debate

The public remains split. Some Americans welcome troop support in Portland to stop property damage. Others fear soldiers on the streets of American cities threaten civil liberties. In social media debates, citizens argue over the meaning of maintaining public order.

Legal experts also disagree. Some believe courts must defer to the president on national security. Others insist the judiciary must protect state sovereignty. Yet all agree the Supreme Court’s next move will set a key precedent.

Balancing Security and Rights

At the heart of the debate is the tension between security and rights. On one hand, leaders want to keep federal buildings safe. On the other hand, citizens worry about unchecked force. If presidential power grows without limit, individual freedoms may shrink.

Therefore, many call for clear laws that define when troops can act. They say a bright-line rule would help both sides. So far, Congress has not passed such a rule. Consequently, the courts decide each case in the moment.

The Role of National Guard Troops

National Guard units serve under dual command. They answer to both governors and the president. Governors can call guards to handle emergencies. Likewise, the president can federalize guards to enforce federal laws.

However, federalizing troops often sparks controversy. Some states resist losing control of their guards. In the past, governors have sued to stop the president’s orders. Courts have issued mixed rulings on when federal orders must yield to states.

If the Supreme Court expands presidential power over National Guard troops, governors might have no say. Then, governors could lose their main tool to respond to local crises. Critics argue this undermines state authority.

Learning from History

Americans once feared a standing army would threaten liberty. The Founders required consent from Congress before troops could act at home. That check aimed to prevent martial law and protect rights.

Today, the tension returns in a modern debate. How much military presence should there be in cities? When can the president act without oversight? These questions echo past struggles over liberty and security.

What Americans Can Do

To protect democratic norms, citizens can contact their representatives. They can ask for laws limiting domestic troop use. They can also support legal challenges that defend state authority.

Furthermore, voters can use elections to shape Congress and the courts. Judges who respect constitutional checks matter greatly. Electing leaders who value separation of powers can curb overreach.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s stay opens a new chapter in the fight over presidential power. Glenn Kirschner warns that the Supreme Court might cement this expansion. If they do, America could face an era of unchecked military authority. The coming months will prove pivotal for the balance between security and liberty.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the Ninth Circuit ruling allow?

It lets the White House use National Guard troops in Portland again. The stay pauses a lower court’s block on troop deployment.

Why might this case go to the Supreme Court?

The administration will likely appeal the Ninth Circuit stay. The Supreme Court could then decide on the president’s military powers.

What is absolute immunity in Trump’s earlier case?

The Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president cannot face criminal charges. That decision limits how the courts can prosecute presidential actions.

How can Congress respond to concerns over presidential power?

Lawmakers can pass laws defining when troops can act at home. They can also set clear limits on federalizing the National Guard.