Occupation Hazard

This Week in Democracy 

• A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration broke the law when it deployed Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June, finding that armed forces should not be used in civilian law enforcement. Judge Charles R. Breyer accused the Trump administration of turning the military into a “national police force.”

  Meanwhile, D.C. sued the Trump administration over what the complaint said is a “military occupation” that violates the Home Rule Act—the cornerstone federal law of D.C.’s self-governance. Orders for the National Guard deployment in D.C. were extended through November.

  ➡️ READ: What’s Breaking Through About National Guard Deployments

• President Trump continued to threaten further deployments in Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, and other cities in his norm-defying push to militarize America’s streets.

  “None of this is about fighting crime or making Chicago safer. None of it,” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said earlier this week, warning that the Texas National Guard was preparing for a deployment to Chicago. “For Trump, it’s about testing his power and producing a political drama to cover up for his corruption.”

  ➡️ WATCH: Gov. Pritzker responds to Trump

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that found that the president did not have the legal authority to impose most of his sweeping tariffs. The 7-4 majority found the president exceeded the bounds of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act when he invoked the law to carry out the tariffs, handing states who sued the administration a victory.

  The Trump administration said it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the president is seeking an expedited ruling.

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts About the Limits of Presidential Power on Tariffs

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocked the Trump administration’s use the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants from Venezuela, finding the president had improperly invoked the 1798 law.

  “A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt or to otherwise harm the United States,” Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote for the majority. The case is likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts About the Alien Enemies Act

• In his administration’s latest effort to gut federal funding for essential programs that Congress approved, the president utilized a rarely used, likely unlawful maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.”

  Trump requested that Congress cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid program funding just 33 days before the end of the fiscal year. The administration’s legal theory went: If Congress doesn’t respond before then, the funding will expire, and recipients will never receive it. But the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly said that the maneuver is not legal.

  A federal judge soon ruled the tactic was illegal, finding that unless Congress acts the Trump administration must spend the allocated money by the end of the month.

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts About Last-Minute Funding Cuts

State of the States

In Arizona, Illinois, and Michigan, state election officials responded to the Justice Department’s ongoing probes demanding sensitive voter information. The three states refused to give the Justice Department their complete voter registration databases, citing concerns that they would violate both federal and state law.

The Brennan Center for Justice is tracking which states have received similar requests for information.

In Louisiana, a group of former Republican governors, represented by the States United and Cooley LLP, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Louisiana v. Callais. The case, which is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, is challenging the state’s redistricting map. Former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (California), Marc Racicot (Montana), William F. Weld (Massachusetts), and Christine Todd Whitman (New Jersey) signed the brief, calling on the high court to protect the voting power of minorities in the state. The governors point out that it is required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“The districting process is critical to determining whether all citizens in a state can fairly elect their chosen representatives,” the governors wrote.

In Massachusetts, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot freeze nearly $3 billion in federal funding to Harvard University, finding the cuts were arbitrary, a violation of freedom of speech, and ultimately illegal.

“Their actions have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes,” Judge Allison Burroughs wrote of the Trump administration in her opinion.

In Missouri, the Justice Department is contacting county election officials, requesting access to election machines made by Dominion Voting Systems that were used during the 2020 presidential election. The company has been a major focus of Election Denier conspiracy theories.

When asked if he would allow such a probe, Jasper County Clerk Charlie Davis responded, “Absolutely not,” adding, “The laws prohibit us from allowing anybody to touch our equipment.”

In Rhode Island, Attorneys General Peter Neronha (Rhode Island) and William Tong (Connecticut) filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the U.S. Department of the Interior and its agency the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for a stop-work order that halted an offshore wind farm that was already 80% complete. The complaint argues the federal government is violating federal law by arbitrarily suspending the project. Lawyers from States United are serving as pro-bono counsel to the state of Rhode Island on the case.

In the News

• Stateline: Governors split over mobilizing National Guard as Trump seeks more troops
• The Atlantic: The anti-Trump strategy that’s actually working
• The Washington Post: House Republicans form new subcommittee to probe Jan. 6
• The New York Times: Justice Department opens criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve official, elevating Trump’s claims
• The Texas Tribune: Some Texas counties replace touchscreen voting machines after Trump order
• New Jersey Monitor: New Jersey to regulate campaign spending on security as political violence mounts
• Associated Press: Pentagon authorizes up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges
• Phys.org: ‘Prebunking’ false claims can increase public trust in elections
• Votebeat: Arizona’s Cochise County, known for election turmoil, may challenge state laws again ahead of 2026
• WIS: Judge blocks South Carolina from giving DOJ millions of voters’ data
• NPR: Trump administration blocks groups from voter registration at naturalization events

Recommended Reading

Amid threats from the president to “get rid of mail-in ballots,” States United released new analysis that found nearly 1 in 3 Americans voted by mail in the 2024 general election—accounting for more than 48 million voters. Among them are people of all demographics, though white voters, voters ages 65+, and overseas U.S. military voters are among the groups that relied significantly on voting by mail in that election.