Is President Trump Authorized to Deploy the National Guard in U.S. Cities? - Ep 68

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into two significant legal topics that are currently shaping the landscape of litigation in the United States.

 

Danessa opens with an update on Drake's defamation and harassment lawsuit against his record label, UMG, for its promotion of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" diss track. Danessa explores how the line between free speech and defamation has come into question in arguments on both sides and shares where the lawsuit stands since our analysis in Episode 61.

 

Next, Jack explores the scope of the U.S. president's domestic military authority, diving into the history of domestic troop deployment from George Washington to Donald Trump's recent efforts in U.S. cities including Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. Jack discusses how these events and the resulting state litigation are impacting the balance between executive and state power.

 

Join us as we discuss the complexities of critical topics and we encourage our listeners to stay informed about how these issues may affect their rights and responsibilities in litigation. Don't forget to subscribe to Litigation Nation for more updates on legal news and analysis!

Episode Transcript

Danessa Watkins (00:06):
Welcome to Litigation Nation. I'm your
host, Danessa Watkins, here withmy cohost, Jack Sanker. As a
reminder, this is the show wherewe cover fun and exciting legal
news from across the country. Weare now committing to trying to
put out an episode once a monthgiven our busy litigation
schedules. We'll do our besthere.
And you can find us wherever youget your podcasts, Apple,

(00:29):
Spotify, YouTube, all the above.So Jack, what do you have for us
today?

Jack Sanker (00:34):
Today, we're gonna be diving into a topical and
relevant topic for our home basehere in Chicago, a lot of places
around the country, anddiscussing the ability of the
president to federalize anddeploy troops domestically,
whether federal troops like theUS military were to take control
of the state's national guard todeploy it domestically. We'll be

(00:56):
talking about some recentlitigation here, in Illinois
regarding the president'sability to do this, and the
we'll spend some time on whatauthority the president actually
has to do this and what theyhave to show to be able to be
authorized to do this type ofthing, the arguments against it
and so on.

Danessa Watkins (01:16):
And given the amount of time that we wanna
dedicate to that subject, I'mjust going to do a quick kind of
where are they now from episode61 where we covered the lawsuit
that Drake filed against hisrecord label for Kendrick
Lamar's Not Like Us diss track.All that and more, here's what

(01:37):
you need to know. Alright. Backin, I believe it was February on
episode 61 of our show, wecovered the defamation and
harassment lawsuit that wasfiled by Drake in a New York
District Court against his Andrecord label, this was regarding

(02:03):
UMG's efforts to promote thediss track released by Kendrick
Lamar in which he most notablyreferred to Drake as a
pedophile. Now this case hasbeen being litigated there and
it's the Southern District OfNew York and on October 9, we
finally got an opinion that cameout in connection with UMG's

(02:27):
motion to dismiss.
I think we had kind of heavilyspeculated that this claim was
going to get thrown out, and wewere in fact correct. So this
judge issued a 38 page opinion.A lot of it is like actually the
first 10 pages go through thehistory of what was occurring

(02:51):
with the diss tracks. I think itwas over like a sixteen day
period. Both Drake and KendrickLamar released a total of nine
tracks between the two of them,all of which included heated
rhetoric, violent imagery, youknow, your your classic diss.
So just as a quick recap, whatDrake did was instead of go

(03:16):
after Kendrick Lamar for all ofthe damages he claims to have
suffered thereafter, he wentafter his record label and he
claimed that they were promotinga defamatory statement about him
because they used more effortsthan they would have for other
songs to promote this particulartrack. So in doing so, they

(03:40):
spread like wildfire, this ideathat Drake is a pedophile and
open Drake up to more damagesthan he says he would have been
open to had they just treatedthis like they would have
treated any other Kendrick Lamartrack. Now, we know how this
song blew up. We know about weactually I think we had talked

(04:02):
about in the former episode thatKendrick Lamar actually
performed it at the Super Bowlhalftime show. So no doubt this
was one of the most successfuldiss tracks that we've seen.
But, you know, that doesn'tnecessarily give Drake a basis
to sue anyone is essentiallywhat the court said. So what it
glommed onto was the fact versusopinion analysis, and the New

(04:28):
York Constitution provides forabsolute protection of opinions.
Of course, we also have underthe First Amendment that there
is no such thing as a falseidea. So the court went through
this analysis of trying todetermine whether this one
statement which Drakehighlighted as the most
damaging, calling him apedophile, whether that would be

(04:49):
perceived by the public as astatement of fact or a statement
of opinion. Now, this is purelya legal question.
This is something that needs tobe decided by judges in the
first instance, mostly becausewe don't want to stifle free
speech. So if people are in factexpressing opinions, even if it
hurts your feelings, you'reprobably not going have a

(05:10):
lawsuit and we want courts toprotect against that right from
the jump. For some reason,Drake's attorneys tried to argue
that this should be a fact, Imean, a question for the jury.
I've never seen that in mypractice, it's always been an
issue of law, so I think thecourt got it right there. And it
outlined the different stepsthat it takes under New York's

(05:33):
law, which is very similar toIllinois and I would assume
similar across the country, todetermine whether a statement is
a fact or an opinion.
So one is you look at thespecific language that's used
and whether it has precisemeaning. Second, whether the
statement is capable of beingproven as true or false. And

(05:53):
third, which is whether eitherthe full context of the
communication in which thestatement appears or the broader
social context and surroundingcircumstances are such as to
signal readers or listeners thatwhat is being read or heard is
likely to be opinion, not fact.So that third portion of the

(06:15):
test, that one obviously kind oflends itself to the facts of
every given case because youhave to look at how is something
communicated, what's going on,even to the point of what are
social and politicaltemperatures like at the time
that something is released. Sothe first two, whether the

(06:37):
statement Drake is a pedophile,has a precise meaning, whether
it's something that's capable ofbeing proven true or false, I
mean, are clearly yes, yes.
So Drake did pass those firsttwo prongs of the test. But the
third one is where he getscaught up. And that's where the
court primarily turns itsattention and its in its

(06:58):
opinion. So first it talks aboutthe forum. And this is whether
essentially where is this beingpublished.
So we look at like news reports,journalistic pieces. Those are
going to signal to readers orlisteners that this is factual
based versus like a blog or sometype of, you know, internet

(07:23):
forum. Those you're going to, asa reader, come in with a little
bit more skepticism or you'regoing to assume that it's just
people, you know, sharing theiropinions. So the court finds
that when you're dealing withthis, it's a it's a diss track.
It's going to be more akin tolike a YouTube or a Twitter
post.
Listeners are going to come inkind of with that skepticism and

(07:46):
with that understanding thatwhat they're listening to is
entertainment. It's not for somescientific or informational
purpose. So that one forumdefinitely weighed in favor of
UMG. Then the court looked tothe surrounding circumstances.
So these were obviously lyricsthat were conveyed in the midst
of a rap battle.

(08:07):
This was actually the eighthsong, I think, that was
released, so towards the end ofthis back and forth. So because
of that, it's going to convey adifferent message. It's going to
have a different effect on thelisteners. Clearly, this was
part of a war on words, quoteunquote, which has been used in
case law for decades to try todistinguish fact versus opinion.

(08:30):
So if it's clear that there'ssome and even in this context of
politics, if there's politicalrhetoric going back and forth or
some public issue that's beingdebated, there's this
understanding it's a war onwords.
You're going to have either sidetrying to do some sort of

(08:51):
persuasion when it comes towhatever that hot button issue
is. So here, the audience isgoing to understand, like, this
is rhetoric. This is hyperbolicmessages that are being
exchanged. These are not factualstatements. So Drake's team,
they tried to argue that thesong itself, not like us, has to
be viewed independently.

(09:12):
And again, this is just anargument that is that is a
loser. Frankly, in my book, youknow, practicing in this area,
like the court was never goingto do this. It's not going to
view this statement in a vacuum.It has to look at the fact that
this this song in particular wasbeing released as part of
bigger, you know, back and forthbetween these two artists. So

(09:37):
the the court essentially saysit's it's not gonna blind itself
to the public attention thatthis whole situation generated.

Jack Sanker: What's interesting is I mean, (09:50):
undefined
this is in the context of thelawsuit that was filed against
the record label. Right? Right.Does the analysis change if it's
against Drake or if it's againstKendrick? Like, the would the
court I guess I should maybeI'll I'll ask you a different
way.

(10:11):
I'm sure that the defendingthemselves by saying, you know,
this is commentary. It's anopinion and so on. Would
Kendrick have defended himselfthat way or would he said, no.
No. He's a pedophile.
It's a fact. I believe it. It'strue. I'm not you know, like,
would it would he have doubleddown on it? And then and if so

(10:36):
which also might be thequestions or might answer the
questions to why Drake did notsue Kendrick.
Because then you get into aquestion of fact on that one
issue. Right?

Danessa Watkins (10:45):
So, yeah. So if I were Kendrick's lawyer I mean,
of course

Jack Sanker (10:53):
insist that he not do

Danessa Watkins (10:54):
Of course, I would wanna know what type of
evidence he actually had, youknow. But I if you were gonna
argue truth, you would argue itin the alternative because
opinion is the clear winnerhere. That's that's an issue of
law. When you get intosubstantial truth, those are

(11:14):
questions of fact and theyrequire discovery. So if I
wanted to get him out of thiscase as quick as possible, and
that's not to say that hecouldn't change his theory later
and, you know, file anaffirmative defense of truth,
But I it wouldn't be my myargument out the gate.
And yeah, I guess you bring up agood point. Is he ego wise going
to, you know, make sure hislawyers only argue truth?

Jack Sanker (11:40):
I mean, he's still he's still performing the song.
I mean Yeah. It is he is he isevery day still calling Drake a
pedophile and did not back down.So, I mean, it's you know, I I
understand that, of of course,the defense strategy of what
you're saying. But if yourclient says, no, it's the it is

(12:01):
the truth.
I wanna argue about it. I Iwanna take that one. I wanna
make that argument. I just, youknow, it it just it's a
completely different situation.

Danessa Watkins (12:11):
And that could have been a strategic move by
Drake's team too. Maybe theydidn't wanna get into that
argument. You know what I mean?Maybe Kendrick Lamar would be
able to put up some proofwhereas UMG maybe doesn't have
the same access or knowledge orwhatnot.

Jack Sanker (12:28):
He strikes me as an extremely petty person. And and
a bit, and I mean, this is acompliment as I am also petty,
but he is a a petty person and,you know, has like I said, he
has not changed his tune on thiswhatsoever. Kendrick. Right. So

(12:51):
I yeah.
I mean, I think when we talkedabout this initially, I think
you said it was episode 61, youknow, we talked about why
wouldn't Nisu you know, thespeaker here, the person who who
who did, you know, was sayingthe allegedly defending things,
which is Kendrick. And I thinkwe were spinning it around and

(13:16):
and said, well, it's it's a badlook for Drake to do that. You
know, it it is lame if you're ina, like, like a a rap battle to
like

Danessa Watkins (13:29):
Yeah. Then turn around and sue the other When
you when you don't come outon top .

Jack Sanker (13:32):
Yeah. It's like tattling on the teacher. You're
you're bringing the teacher inor or, like, they call him the
hall monitor. Like, it is kindalame to do. And we said that was
probably the reason why.
But, like, alternatively, itcould be they don't want to
actually have to, you know, getinto that messy discovery where

(13:53):
where this issue has to be, youknow, addressed factually.

Danessa Watkins (13:56):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (13:56):
Right?

Danessa Watkins (13:57):
Well, I mean, to be fair, they would have had
to do that in this case eitherway. I mean, defamation, it it's
not defamation unless it'sfalse. Right? So at some point,
it would be Drake's burden toprove falsity. But, yeah, I
think he I think there were alot of reasons why he didn't go
after Kendrick Lamar.
But I, in the end, what is theeffect of this? Effectively, he

(14:22):
was going after Kendrick Lamar.Like he was going after another
artist. He was just doing itthrough, you know, an affiliate.

Jack Sanker (14:30):
He would have released like 10 more songs.
Would have kept It would havekept going through. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (14:36):
But I mean, so even if don't know what the
statute of limitations is in NewYork. In Illinois, it's a year.
I think the most I've seen istwo years. So let's assume New
York was two years. If it if itwas, then he would still have
until I think it was released inJune, so June 2027 or excuse me,

(15:00):
2026 to bring a claim againstKendrick Lamar, but this judge
shut that down.
Actually, in the opinion saysthe recording was a protected
opinion at the time of itsinitial publication. So the
republication by UMG cannottransform Lamar's statement of

(15:21):
opinion into UMG's statement offact. So the court is
definitively saying from thejump, this was a statement of
opinion. It would have been thisaction would have been protected
against Kendrick Lamar just sameas it was against UMG. And the
court shut down all of thearguments Drake was trying to

(15:44):
make about how the success ofthe song should have weighed
into the defamation analysis.
I'm just gonna read this oneparagraph from the opinion that
I thought was interesting. Thejudge says, quote, perhaps most
fatally for plaintiff'sargument, it would render
protection for artisticexpression dependent upon an

(16:06):
impermissible retroactiveanalysis. At the time he
released Not Like Us, KendrickLamar could not have been aware
that it would break streamingrecords, win record of the year
at the Grammys, or be featuredat the Super Bowl halftime show.
Yet, plaintiff would have thecourt divorce the recording from
the context in which it wascreated because of these
subsequent events. Whetherpublications constitute

(16:28):
actionable fact or protectedopinion cannot vary based upon
the popularity they achieve.
Constitutional guarantees do notrest on such a flimsy
foundation, end quote. Sodefamation definitely out. I
remember from our last recordingyou thought the angle of

(16:48):
harassment was maybe theirbetter claim. What we hadn't
considered though is the factthat in New York, this was
pursuant to a criminal statutethat does not include an express
right to bring a civil claim. Sojust for the listeners in case
you don't know, generally, if ifthere's a criminal statute, they

(17:12):
will include some sort of a oror not.
They will or will not includesome sort of a carve out
provision that allows for aindependent action in in civil
court. So instead of like thestate pursuing a criminal
statute, it allows an individualto do so for money damages.
Again, not every criminalstatute allows this. But

(17:34):
sometimes, even if a statutedoesn't specifically say that it
allows for it, a court can readin some sort of a inferred right
to private standing or impliedright. Here, the judge refused
to do that and said, no, ourharassment claims in in New York
are criminal only.

(17:55):
So threw that one out. The lastcount was pursuant to New York
General Business Law sectionthree forty nine which is
essentially like a deceptiveTrade Practices Act sort of
claim. Here there were therewere different reasons why the

(18:16):
court rejected it, but one oflike the most prominent, which
is an argument we see also underour statute, is that there's
really no harm to the consumershere. So these type of deceptive
trade practices act generallythey're there to protect
consumers. So it's not likeanything that UMG did cause

(18:37):
consumers to for example like bedeceived into buying a record
they wouldn't have otherwise.
So Drake essentially failed tofailed to plead sufficient facts
that there was consumer harm.And what he did plead though was
all upon information and belief.And it it just didn't pass the

(19:00):
plausibility standard. Now youcan definitely plead upon
information and belief incertain circumstances, but the
court took some great effort tosay, but what it what is your
belief based on? And ultimately,everything was like third party
fans writing on Twitter.

(19:21):
Like accuse accusing UMG ofutilizing like these covert
tactics of manipulating thestreams. And so it these weren't
it's not like they had some likeemails they got ahold of or like
some radio DJ was like, oh,yeah, UMG contacted me and told
me to, use bots or whatever. No.It was purely like just people's

(19:46):
opinion writing on Twitter andand other social media sites and
that's not enough essentiallythe court said. So the case was
dismissed with prejudice.
I think I read somewhere thatDrake's team said they're
probably gonna appeal. I mean,after reading this opinion, I
think the judge did a reallygood job of, like, I don't I

(20:09):
don't see any basis for appealhere. So I mean, not that he,
you know, is worried about themoney he's gonna spend. Maybe
he's in it now. He's gotta fightthe fight.
But I I don't know. At thispoint, I'd be like, Drake, pack
it up and go home. Like, this isnot, you know, the hole you
wanna or the the mound you wannadie on.

Jack Sanker (20:28):
Yeah. It just it seems like there there were
other avenues here. I mean, thefor like, a victory in principle
or something, you know, theywhether it's a, like, a private
toward action even against thethe label. Because, I mean, the

(20:53):
the context, I mean, in thecomplaint that was filed, which
we talked about in our so whenwe covered this, it it starts
off with the account of the theindividuals that end up going to
Drake's house and shooting upthe place. And I believe his
security officer or bodyguard orsomeone in those lines was shot.
And I I did they are theykilled? I don't remember

(21:13):
offhand.

Danessa Watkins (21:14):
No. He he ended up surviving.

Jack Sanker (21:17):
That's good. But nonetheless, like like, there
was, like, you know, anextremely violent act that was,
at least according to thecomplaint and the circumstances
around it, tied to this thisthing. And I wonder if there was
another way in which this couldhave been done on those grounds
or or something like that, youknow. And I'm thinking of like

Danessa Watkins (21:43):
I

Jack Sanker (21:43):
you know.

Danessa Watkins (21:45):
Well Yeah. Exactly. But I And I was just
thinking through that as youwere saying it. So I think the
problem is that that occurred soclose in time. I wanna say
within forty eight hours.
So UMG hadn't taken any actionyet, you know, to promote it, to
promote the song.

Jack Sanker (22:03):
I see. They can't so that would be, if anything,
you would have to plead thatagainst Kendrick, were they're
avoiding.

Danessa Watkins (22:09):
I mean, you know, that's something that has
to be foreseeable. Right? So

Jack Sanker (22:14):
Right. Right. Well, yeah. I mean, but again, it just
makes me wonder, like, you know,if if there was another way for,
you know, Drake to to make hispoint here other than take on an
incredibly high standard ofproof And and, you know, even I

(22:35):
mean, these cases, I understand,I mean, you're the expert, you
know, in this type of law, it'sit's its own thing, but, like,
these are hard cases. And Iwonder if there was some more
there's a better way for him toget a win on paper at least than
to take, you know, the path ofmost resistance here.

Danessa Watkins (22:57):
Yeah. I think this was just one of those like
I mean, don't wanna assume whatwas, you know, going through his
mind and the minds of hislawyers, but I I think he
probably felt he had to dosomething and it would have been
more offensive to the musicindustry and his colleagues to

(23:18):
go after another artist. So Ithink they tried to be creative
and do it this way. But and Ithink I yeah. In in our prior
episode, I had said that theydid do some some discovery
before filing this complaint.
So, you know, if if nothingshowed up in that discovery that

(23:39):
gave them what they needed forthe at least the deceptive trade
practices claim, they probablyshould have called it quits.
Yeah. Here we are.

Jack Sanker (23:50):
That's interesting. Yeah.

Danessa Watkins (23:52):
So that's your where are they now update on the
Drake saga.

Jack Sanker (24:03):
Our next story that we're talking about this
episode, it's a it's a littleheavier than the Drake Kendrick
beef part two. And somethingtopical and particularly
relevant to, you know, oursituation in the city of
Chicago. That's that's wherethat's where our firm is based

(24:25):
where we have offices in I thinksix states, but the mothership,
if you will, was in Chicago.Dennis and I both live in
Chicago. So we have someperspective on this, which we'll
sprinkle in as well.
But we're talking about the theefforts to deploy federal troops
domestically, specifically toIllinois, but we'll we'll talk a

(24:49):
kind of more bigger picture aswell here. And we're gonna be
talking about both the effortsto deploy for the federal
government to deploy theNational Guard to quote unquote
federalize the National Guard aswell as, at the end, I'll
discuss a little bit about whatwould happen, if the federal
government wants to deploy theregular military as well. So

(25:14):
this discussion, you know, is inlight of like recent events, of
course, like just, you know,kinda look around. I'm sure if
people that are listening, youknow, broadly, this is a
downstream effect of the ICEimmigration crackdown that's
happening across the country,but most prominently in a lot of

(25:38):
metropolitan areas, big cities.Chicago has become a particular
target for this enforcementaction that's happening.
And the justification forbroadly speaking, justification
for, you know, why it is thatthe federal government wants to
now either send in, you know,the regular military or to
federalize a national guard is,the effects of, the enforcement

(25:59):
action, the immigrationenforcement action, and how
people in the states areresponding to them. So broadly
speaking, what the federalgovernment is saying here is
people in these states areeither obstructing the the
immigration actions, which we wewant to conduct and slash or are

(26:26):
putting other people at risk,damaging things, or potentially
hurting federal officers, thingslike that. So it's you know,
these are this is a cause andeffect type thing. Right? The
the ICE immigration crackdown ishappening.
People are responding to that.And as and a response to the
response from the federalgovernment is okay. We wanna
send in either the NationalGuard or the military to deal
with that. The federalgovernment has been talking

(26:51):
about this for a long time sinceI went back and looked at the
Trump administration. I mean,back in the twenty fifteen,
twenty sixteen campaign, I mean,this was a topic that was
broached.
I mean, but at that point, itwas kinda beyond the pale. No
one took it seriously. Therewere points in which during the
first Trump administration in2016 to 2020 that he talked

(27:16):
about this as well in thecontext of like the George Floyd
protests and and riots orwhatever you wanna call them.
And in most instances where, youknow, that discussion kinda got
serious, like there's I'mthinking one comes to mind is in
Minnesota, which is where, ofcourse, the George Floyd was
killed and that led to protests,which then led to rioting and

(27:39):
property damage and all thatstuff. Effectively, at that
point, then president Trump saidsomething on the lines of, hey,
Minnesota, you're gonna eithergonna deploy the National Guard
or I will.
Right? So basically, ultimatumto the state to activate their
National Guard, which they did.This was under governor Tim

(28:00):
Walts who, of course, ran forvice president alongside Kamala
Harris. And that this alsohappened in a number of states,
happened in Illinois as well.Our governor, JB Pritzker,
deployed the National Guard inresponse to the protests slash
riots here in Illinois as well.
But it was done at the statelevel. What's happening here and
what's a bit unique is that thestates in particular, Illinois,

(28:22):
which we'll be spending most ofour time talking about today,
but this is also happening inWashington. There was DC is its
own thing because it's not astate, but there the state
governments are saying, we don'twant you to do this. And the
president is saying, want youanyways. Right?
That's what makes it distinctfrom a lot of other examples of
this type of thing. So so underwhat instances can the

(28:42):
president, you know, overridethe governor of a specific state
and say we are going to send inthe National Guard to your state
whether you like it or not.That's that's what we're gonna
be talking about. There is ahistorical precedent for this
type of thing in this country.Of course, this this has
happened before.
There's a lot of caveats to thatstatement, but this is not the

(29:05):
first time that a presidentwould have done this. The
earliest example I can find is,president George Washington, the
first, president, called up thestate's militias in 1794 put
down the whiskey rebellion. It'sa bit of an outlier because the
statutory framework around thatstuff was Danessa's rolling her
eyes because I'm gonna do thishistorical bit, but I'm like and

(29:26):
you wait because I am gonna workreconstruction into this as
well. Of course. Yeah.
It's happening. But it it's itwas different then because the
the the idea of a federalstanding military didn't quite
exist the way that it does now.And also, militias were a

(29:47):
different part of the federal,you know, armed forces makeup
than they are now. NationalGuard is kind of a different
thing and all that. Butnonetheless, you know, that's
probably the first example youcould think of.
Of course, it did happen a lotduring Reconstruction. This is
the period after the civil war.And the the goat himself,

(30:08):
Ulysses s Grant, he deployed theNational Guard as well as
regular military, mostly toSouthern states during
Reconstruction to protect therights of former slaves who were
seeking exercise their right tovote and to do all sorts of
other things too. He wasenforcing the 1871 Ku Klux Klan

(30:31):
Act as well as the the 1870Enforcement Act. Both of both of
those were Reconstruction ledbits of legislation that were
meant to sort of quell the thebacklash to the result of civil
war in the passing of the thecivil right or the

(30:52):
constitutional amendments,fourteenth thirteenth,
fourteenth, and fifteenthamendments.
The statutory scheme for thesedeployments kind of historical
examples I'm giving were muchmore expansive at the time. The
president used to have a lotmore powers to do this
unilaterally. And as a kind ofas a result of these

(31:14):
presidential deployments toSouthern states, southern
Democrats at the time, incongress eventually passed the,
it's called the Posse CommodusAct, PCA, which barred the use
of troops for law enforcement,cases, except in cases or under
circumstances expresslyauthorized by the constitution
or by an act of congress. Sobroadly speaking, that is still

(31:36):
in effect. The the presidentcan't unilaterally, deploy
military forces to conduct,like, regular policing.
There has to be a specificreason for it that's enumerated
by an act of congress, whichI'll get into. And and there is
a, there is some legislationwhich, you know, from the
administration's perspective,does allow them to do this in
this case. There's you know, atthe end of reconstruction, the

(32:02):
guard being deployed by thefederal government actually, let
me do this bit again. Sorry.With the end of Reconstruction,
the guard being deployeddomestically is more or less
limited to three specific roles.

(32:22):
The first of which is guardmembers typically serve in the
role as, like, what's calledstate active duty, SAD, during
which they work on behalf of theindividual states. So that's by
and large the most common,instance where guard members are
are deployed. I mentioned beforethis happened in Minnesota

(32:44):
during and after the, like,George Floyd protests and riots,
governor Tim Walz called up thethe Minnesota National Guard.
This also happened in Illinoisduring that time. And you know,
I don't have a list in front ofme, but I think it was fairly
common at that point in timebecause the scope of those

(33:05):
protests and riots, you know,were so big that they just kinda
needed additional people outsideof the regular police force, to
deal with them.
The second authority fordeploying the guard is when the
states, not federal government,deploys the guard pursuant to a
federal mission that's that'sset by congress. And this
usually is in the form of, like,disaster relief historically.

(33:29):
Federal governments, in thiscase, they will foot the bills
for these expenses. The sothey'll pay the, know, whatever
the cost is to deploy the guardin the in these cases. So
there's, you know, some benefit,to the states when this happens.
But like I said, this is likethink like hurricane response,
things like that. National Guardgets deployed. Federal
government is gonna pay forthat, but they are getting
deployed by the by the state, bythe governor, of the individual

(33:55):
state, but pursuant to a federalmission. And the third instance,
arises under title 10 of the UScode, which broadly governs the
military, the differentbranches, and so on. Title 10
contains the authority for thepresident to federalize the
National Guard pursuant tospecific and limited purposes.

(34:15):
And when this happens, the guardis placed under Pentagon slash
presidential authority, justlike the rest of the military
would be. Here's what title 10says on this issue. For those of
all that wanna look this up,this is, 10 US code section,
twelve four zero six. And itsays, whenever one, The United

(34:36):
States or any of thecommonwealth or possessions is
invaded or is in danger ofinvasion by a foreign nation.
Two, there's a rebellion ordanger of a rebellion against
the authority of the governmentof the United States.
That rebellion aspect issomething we'll talk about in a
moment. And three, the presidentis unable with regular forces to

(34:56):
execute the laws of The UnitedStates. That's the other hook
that the administration is gonnalatch on to as well. So if there
is a, quote, unquote, rebellionagainst the authority of the
government of the United Statesor, if the president is, quote,
unable with regular forces toexecute the laws of The United
States in those instances, thepresident can federalize the

(35:16):
National Guard and deploy themwhether or not the state,
agrees. So whether or not thegovernor of the individual state
wants them there or not, the theunder section 10, they can do
that.
The the statute goes on to say,the president may call into
federal service members andunits of the National Guard in
any such numbers as he considersnecessary to repel the invasion,

(35:36):
suppress the rebellion, orexecute those laws. Orders for
these purposes shall be issuedthrough the governors of the
states or in the case ofdistrict Columbia through the
commanding general of theNational Guard of the District
of Columbia. This authorityunder title 10 is what the
federal government recentlyargued allowed them to deploy
the guard in Illinois, whichthey have not done yet, but they

(35:59):
have been trying to effectively.The state of Illinois filed a
lawsuit seeking an injunction toprevent them from doing that.
They they as it stands, we sithere today, 10/21/2025.
There is a temporary restrainingorder in effect, is preventing
the federal government fromdoing so until unless and until

(36:20):
this issue can be resolved,presumably by intervention of a
higher court. In this case, it'sgonna be the Supreme Court.

Danessa Watkins (36:25):
Yeah. I think I just saw they're trying to fast
track it to the Supreme Courtright now.

Jack Sanker (36:31):
Yeah. And I can see why. I mean, it's it's timely.
You know, it's it's if you thinkthis is if you're of the mind
that there is a rebellionhappening in Illinois, which
we'll talk about. But if you'reof the mind that that's the
case, then you wanna do this asquickly as possible.
Right? Mhmm. So here's the kindof background facts that are at
play here in Illinois at least.September 2025, the

(36:53):
administration launchedOperation Midway Blitz, which is
the immigration crackdown thatwe've talked about specific to
Illinois. There is a an iceprocessing facility in
Broadview, Illinois, which is asuburb of Chicago.
I it's I think it's relevant topoint out. It's not in Chicago.

(37:14):
It's about 15 miles away fromDowntown Chicago. So if you're
driving, it's like four hourswith our traffic.

Danessa Watkins (37:22):
It's We are.

Jack Sanker (37:25):
So it's, you know, it's not Chicago proper. There's
been protests outside of theBroadview facility, which have
grown in response to thisimmigration crackdown. There is
what I'm gonna get into somesome points here where I say
things like this is a peacefulprotest or things like that.

(37:48):
One, you know, people who don'tagree with that or whatever can
roll their eyes. That's fine.
But I'll jump ahead here andtell you that there have been
hearings on this, and this iswhat the district court here in
the Northern District OfIllinois has concluded are the
facts that are relevant. Thedistrict court has concluded

(38:09):
already that these are mostlypeaceful protests that are
happening there. Personally, andfrom my own observations as, you
know, a resident here, I couldtell you that there has not been
instances of, like, vandalism,property damage, or violence at
the Broadview facility that I'maware of. There've been
protests, there's been peoplescreaming with signs. I'm sure

(38:30):
people have thrown things, know,like that that probably has
happened.
I I don't know offhand, but butit's not as though, you know,
people are ripping down fencesor things like that. You know,
that that Yeah. Has not Yeah.And that's that's both true in
the record here. That's that'sbeen argued and decided already
by the courts, but also, like,based on my own observations.

(38:53):
And I I'm trying to, you know,call balls and strikes here like
I see it. So following theseincidents of these clashes at
the Broadview facility, ICE hasused pepper spray and tear gas,
road closures, and so on.Department of Homeland Security
requested the depart Departmentof Defense to assist claiming

(39:14):
threats of violent organizedgroups. Federal officials
suggested escalating force,including chemical weapons. And
I think chemical weapons there,they mean, you know, tear gas
and so on.
Illinois has declined tovoluntarily deploy its national
guard. In response, presidentTrump invoked title 10, section

(39:38):
twelve four zero sixfederalizing the National Guard
on October 4. So about, what,seventeen days ago as the day of
this recording, citing violentattacks on federal facilities
and obstruction of immigrationenforcement. Defense secretary
Pete Hagsteth then ordered aninitial 400 troops from Texas

(40:01):
National Guard to be deployed inIllinois and into Oregon. Our
governor, JB Pritzker, opposedthis, arguing that state forces
were handling situationeffectively.
And that's also you know, thathas been argued both in, you
know, in briefings that weresubmitted to the district court
and through oral arguments,things like that. The question

(40:22):
of local police, state policeofficers, and so on, have has
they been able to handle thesethese clashes at the Broadridge
facility effectively? And thecourt has ruled, yes, they have.
And again, I've seen noevidence, you know, personally
to contradict that. Like, youknow, people that are there,
there are cops there, there arestate police officers there.

(40:46):
And, you know, outside of, youknow, like I said, probably some
instances of people throwingthings here and then, which I
don't think is even fairlycommon. I'm speculating. I mean,
I'm giving them the benefit ofthe doubt here. But there hasn't
been, you know, instances of,like, people getting mobbed and
beaten or whatever, you know,you wanna call it. So under

(41:07):
these facts, the federalgovernment, in the context of
the lawsuit that was filed bythe state of Illinois, they
argued these protests were,quote, impeding the execution of
the laws in United States, andthey're citing specifically to
the statutory language that Imentioned earlier in article 10,
that allows for federaldeployment of guard troops.
The state of Illinois arguedthat on the ground in Chicago

(41:27):
and in Broadview, the facts onthe ground do not rise to the
level of rebellion or danger ofrebellion and that regular
forces are able to execute thelaws. Discussing this question
of, like, what is a rebellionunder title 10? What what would
constitute a rebellion under thefacts here? The seventh circuit

(41:50):
so I should note the districtcourt found for the state.
Federal government appealed tothe seventh circuit, and the
seventh circuit, a couple ofdays ago, issued an order
upholding the district courtopinion and fighting in favor of
the state as well.
Here's what the seventh circuithad to say about what a what is

(42:10):
a rebellion under the law.Quote, we start with section
twelve four zero six. This istitle 10. In the meeting of
rebellion or danger of arebellion, The parties rely on
the same dictionaries from thelate nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries with theadministration arguing that
rebellion should be read to meandeliberate resistance to the

(42:31):
government's laws and authority.Plaintiffs argue plaintiffs
instead urged us to definerebellion more narrowly as the
district court did as a violent,armed, organized, open, and
avowed resistance that isagainst the government as a
whole, often with the aim ofoverflow overthrowing the
government rather than inopposition to a single law or

(42:52):
issue, unquote.
Seventh Circuit goes on here.Well, we emphasize that the
critical analysis of a rebellioncenters on the nature of the
resistance to the governmentauthority. Political obsession
is not rebellion. A protest doesnot become a rebellion merely
because protesters callprotesters advocate for myriad
legal or policy changes are wellorganized, call for significant

(43:14):
changes to the structure of theUS government, use civil
disobedience as a form ofprotest, or exercise their
second amendment right to carryfirearms as the law currently
allows. Nor does a protestbecome a rebellion merely
because of sporadic and isolatedincidents of unlawful activity
or even violence committed byrogue participants in the
protest.
Such conduct exceeds the scopeof the first amendment, of
course, and law enforcement hasapprehended the perpetrators

(43:36):
accordingly. But becauserebellions at least use
deliberate organized violence toresist governmental authority,
the problematic incidents in thein this record clearly fall
within the considerable daylightbetween protected speech and
rebellion, unquote. So accordingto the Seventh Circuit, there's
no rebellion that's happeninghere in Chicago. Here I'm I am

(43:58):
gonna editorialize a little bit.

Danessa Watkins (44:01):
Well, Power off. Just for one second. So
that to be clear, that burden ison the federal government.
Right? It's the federalgovernment's burden to to prove
rebellion.

Jack Sanker (44:12):
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Once the once the
plaintiff has made their I'msure they have to make some type
of prima facie showing thattheir rights are being violated
and the plaintiff here is thestate.
This is a this is the part whereI will editorialize a little
bit. This is this is anecdotal.Take it for what it's worth. But
the Almaden Davis here office inChicago is at the corner of

(44:35):
Michigan Avenue and RandolphStreet, which is right in the
middle of the loop here inChicago. I was here, our office
was here, but I I was here forthe George Floyd protests slash
riots, whatever you wanna callthem, in 2020 and 2021.

(44:55):
And in that instance, thegovernor of Illinois, JB
Pritzker, did deploy theIllinois guard to assist police
units responding to that. Thoseprotests and riots were many,
many, many times bigger, moredisruptive, severe, damaging,
whatever you wanna call it, thananything that I could observe

(45:17):
that's happening today. And andit's not just like what I can
observe from, like, looking atTwitter or whatever. I mean, I
mentioned the placement of ouroffice because we're in the
Loop, which is on two sides onthree sides surrounded by water
here. There's a lot of bridgesin Chicago if you wanna get from

(45:38):
the Loop to River North, whichis a densely populated
residential and commercialdistrict.
And if you live on the NorthSide like I do, you have to go
that way. So you have to cross abridge, at least one to get
where you're going. And when theGeorge Floyd stuff was
happening, they would lift thebridges, because they're they're

(45:58):
draw bridges, so the boatshanging underneath them. They
would lift the bridges so as toisolate the loop from the North
Side of the city. And I remembervery vividly being at the
office, and when they were towhen the protests and by and
candidly, I mean, the protestsduring daytime were, you know,

(46:20):
usually like protest rallies andmarches, and then nighttime
would tend to become, you know,property damage, violent, things
like that.
They would sound this, you know,the siren. It's like the
hurricane siren. Like, it's onceyou hear it, you know it. But to
let everyone know in the citythat the bridges are going up.

(46:41):
And I would be at the office andhear that siren through the
window.
And I would be like, crap. Igotta go. Because I gotta get
home or else I have to go fiveor six miles out of the way to
get to back to my place. Andthat was a weekly occurrence in
my my recollection.Recollection.
There it was it was that bad.And it was like I don't know if

(47:02):
you remember like the Batmanmovies, the Christian Bale
Batman movies, like the the forwere filmed in Chicago and,
like, the the whole there's abit in the first Batman movie
where, like, there's I think,like, the asylum, all the former
criminals get let loose. Theyraise the bridges to isolate
that portion of the city. Like,that's there was film in

(47:23):
Chicago. Those were the bridgesand, like, that's pretty much
what you can, like, mentally,like, picture happening here was
that was what was happening.
And so that was, in thatinstance, the guard was
deployed. And whether you, youknow, whether you think
justified or not, to me, that'slike the benchmark, you know, of
like, okay, when does andthere's nothing like there's

(47:47):
nothing remotely close to thathappening at all in in Chicago.
And I have a a front row seat toit, if it were. So the district
court here was presented with,you know, the same evidence that
I or at least a lot of theevidence that I can personally
observe and conclude that thereis no quote unquote rebellion,

(48:07):
I'll tell you there is norebellion happening here in the
city. That's that element to meis is just like preposterous.
It it it just is. Like, as aperson who lives here and can
look at it.

Danessa Watkins (48:19):
Yeah. To give a little of my own flavor on that.
So we represent a number of barsand restaurants in this area as
well. And I can tell you duringthe George Floyd protests, and
not necessarily that it hadanything to do with with the
people that were protesting forthat, it's just the nature of

(48:40):
the time was chaotic. It wasCOVID.
It was, you know, BLM movement.It was I I think just people are
cooped up too generally andangsty and whatnot. And, you
know, losing money constantly.But either way, we did have
clients that, you know, theirtheir restaurants were looted
and storefronts broken into andproperty destroyed. I mean, it

(49:03):
it was a regular occurrence.
And we have not had any of that.And I will say, so this is kind
of, I guess, a little bit I Iknow you're probably gonna go
back to to your story or, youknow, to to covering the the
legal aspects of this. Butbefore recording this episode,

(49:23):
Jack and I said that we kind ofview this platform as as unique
and that we are, you know,somewhat presenting our opinions
on certain things. Butultimately, we're trying to
report on legal news from acrossthe country. Right?
And one of the things that I'vefound recently is that people

(49:45):
don't know what to believe. And,you know, you have different
commentary coming from differentplaces. So, you know, our our
goal here is not to not to shareour politics or anything of that
flavor, but more so to just givefactual, we live here, we you

(50:07):
know, we work here, our kidsplay here, we are experiencing
what's happening in Chicagoevery day of our lives. So all
we can do is just provide anthis is what we're seeing, these
are the facts and you know, drawyour own conclusions but this
this is just meant to share ourour observations of what is

(50:31):
happening in our town.

Jack Sanker (50:33):
Yeah. And I think that that that's why I I can say
I mean, I can use a stronglanguage of saying it's like
preposterous, you know, like toto claim there's a rebellion
happening here. Because of that,then what was, you know, 2020.
Right? If that's the case, like,that was I mean, I I cannot
stress, like, that was a 100times more disruptive and worse

(50:55):
than than what is happening.
There there really, there are noprotests outside of the
Broadview facility, which is notin Chicago. The district court
did get into so there like,there's the rebellion aspect of
this and then there is the canthe president, through use of
regular forces, affect andexecute the law? So this is the

(51:18):
two kind of separate instancesby which the president can can
exercise authority under article10. The rebellion aspect that I
I I hope that the the audience,you know, understands here is
that was not the the bulk ofwhat the administration argued
because I think they evenrealized that it was nonsense,
and that was not treated veryseriously by by the

(51:39):
administration even. But evenbut, you know, of course, by the
district court and by theseventh circuit.
But the second question of, youknow, by can the president
effectuate the enforcement oflaws through, quote, unquote,
regular forces? That's the thatI would I would say would be the
more meritorious of the of theclaims. But even that, there

(52:00):
just wasn't a lot of evidence inthe record. And the record, by
the way, is is created by theparties. Right?
So the the record means when thedistrict court talks about the
record and when the seventhcircuit talks about the record,
they're talking about what factswere presented by the parties,
which includes theadministration here to support
this argument. And the record ofin support of the

(52:23):
administration's positioninvolves, you know, what they
would claim is that federalagents were there was violence
against federal agents, forexample. And like, go ahead and
scroll through the news. Youcould find those examples of
those things like, again, likepeople throwing things, things

(52:43):
like that. But there this wasput to writing, but, you know,
like they had to tally thesethings up and include them in
their briefing on this stuff.
And what the administration wasable to come up with was, like,
a dozen agents have likesuffered minor injuries. I think
they they said several had toseek medical care, but the most

(53:05):
the only one they added anyspecifics to was an officer who
I believe injured their knee.And there was not an allegation
that, like, someone shoved thisperson and they fell and they
tore their knee or whatever.They just said, like, you know,
one officer tore his knee. Andand it's like, was that stepping
out of the car?
Was it you know, it was like,and and I'm not saying that I

(53:26):
mean, that's not good. I mean, II federal agents, it's not good
if they're they're gettinginjured, of course. But in the
context of, you know, what'shappening, which is thousands of
these agents being deployed tothe city, chasing people down,
frankly, kicking indoors. I'mnot exaggerating by those things
and all those things. It's kindof remarkable that only a

(53:48):
handful of folks have gottenminor injuries here.
So that whole element of, youknow, federal agents are being
injured was is also like that'sI mean, compare that to
statistics about normal policeofficers and the injuries that
they suffer on the job as partof the job. Compare that to any
other, you know, public servantsor whatever. So it's it's just

(54:11):
is not outside what you wouldexpect to be the norm or is not
unexpected at all. That elementof, you know, what the federal
agents that are having to dealwith here. And they're and
they're getting yelled at andpeople are screaming in their
faces and all that stuff and,like, don't get me wrong here.
But that's different thansaying, you know, they are

(54:32):
unable to to enforce the lawbecause in on one hand, the
state argues and says they'reclaiming they can't enforce the
law here in Illinois, butthey've made x amount of
hundreds of arrests. They theyclaim very loudly. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah.

(54:52):
The the Department of HomelandSecurity, I believe, is claiming
they made 1,500 arrests inIllinois in the past month for
immigration, you know, relatedthings. And they, like, put out
these, like, social media videosof them, like, you know, doing
these things and perp walkingpeople that are handcuffed and
everything else. And it's like,okay. Well, by by their words,
they're enforcing the law quitea bit. And if they've, you know,

(55:13):
their mission seems to be goingjust fine according to what they
have to say here.
So it's hard for them to come inhere and say, we cannot enforce
the law. Therefore, we need tosend in the guard when in fact,
you know, publicly speaking,these these these are facts that
were entered into the record aswell. They're claiming to have
all kinds of success doing thathere. So so the seventh circuit,

(55:33):
you know, on on appeal here doestalk about that. They went on to
discuss whether, you know,quote, unquote, regular forces
are unable to execute the lawsof The United States.
And they say, quote, evenapplying great deference to the
administration's view of thefacts. Under the facts as found
by the district court, there isinsufficient evidence that
protest activity in Illinois hassignificantly impeded the

(55:54):
ability of federal officers toexecute federal immigration
laws. Federal facilities,including the processing
facility in Broadview, haveremained open despite regular
demonstrations against theadministration's immigration
policies. And though federalofficers have encountered
sporadic disruptions, they havebeen quickly contained by local,
state, and federal authorities.At the same time, immigration

(56:14):
arrests and deportations haveproceeded to pace in Illinois
over the past year.
The administration has beenproclaiming the success of his
current efforts to enforceimmigration laws in the Chicago
area. That's what I'm talkingabout, their social media posts.
Yep. The administration,accordingly, is also unlikely to
succeed on this argument. Sowith this, the Seventh Circuit

(56:37):
is held with the deployment ofthe guard under either of the
unable to execute regular forceexecute the laws of regular
forces portion or the rebellionportion of of title 10, those
arguments, they're not buying.
And and as it stands, there's atemporary injunction or

(56:57):
temporary restraining order inplace preventing the federal
government from deploying theguard here, which is, you know,
where we are currently.

Danessa Watkins (57:06):
Yeah. And I saw that. So there was an emergency
filing by the federal governmenton October 17 to the Supreme
Court to void the SeventhCircuit's order. And
interestingly, they are theargument now, and I don't know
if this argument was made at thelower court, but they're saying

(57:29):
that the president's decisionwhether to federalize the guard
is not subject to secondguessing by the state of
Illinois or a federal districtcourt that's quoted from from
their emergency filings. So nowI don't know if they again I
don't know if they argued thisbefore but essentially now
they're saying this isn't evenabout whether we can show that

(57:52):
there's a rebellion or whetherwe can show that our federal
officers aren't able to executethese immigration laws.
Court you don't even havejurisdiction to review these
actions. It's almost likethey're saying this is exclusive
authority of the executivebranch.

Jack Sanker (58:12):
Yeah. That that to me seems like an echo of the
arguments that were made in theI don't have a case in front of
me, I'm sorry. I'm not I don'tfollow the Supreme Court.

Danessa Watkins (58:21):
Trump versus Illinois is where oh, wait. No.
No. Yeah. The unreviewableexecutive discretion, that
language came from this Trumpversus Illinois case, I think.

Jack Sanker (58:34):
What I I I was thinking about was the Supreme
Court ruling trimming the powerof district courts to issue
issue national injunctions.

Danessa Watkins (58:45):
Oh, right. Yeah. We covered that before.
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (58:47):
Yeah. And and and I I don't follow the supreme court
as, like, part of my day job. SoI I don't have, like, I don't
have that handy. I'm sorry. Butbut broadly speaking, the the
opinion of the of the supremecourt was that district court
judges, federal district courtjudges do not have as expansive
authority as they have beenoperating with over the past
fifty years or so to issuenational injunctions in joining

(59:10):
federal policy and instead haveto issue more limited rulings,
limited to, I think, to thesituation of the individual
litigants.
So, you know, for example, ifthe federal government had
rolled out roll out a policy,basically the national stop and
frisk policy, for example.Right? And say we're going to

(59:32):
allow federal officers to juststop people in the street and
search their pockets withoutprobable cause or a warrant.
Right? A federal district courtcould rule that violates your
fourth and fifth amendmentrights.
We're going to enjoin thefederal government from from
doing this policy againstanyone. What the supreme court

(59:53):
has recently said is you theycan't do that. They can't issue
a national injunction in some ina context like that. Their their
rulings are, you know, morelimited, I believe, to the
jurisdiction of the court. I'mnot exactly sure.
But in any event, what theadministration seems to be doing
here is latching on to thatsentiment that the district

(01:00:15):
court can't can't tell thefederal government what to do
here based on the discretion ofthe executive and the the power
of the federal government and soon. So not even so much as
trying to argue that they theirdefinition of what's happening
here in Illinois fits into,unable to execute the laws or

(01:00:37):
there's rebellion happening.They're just saying, you can't
tell us what to do here. Right?And so that's we'll see what the
Supreme Court has to say aboutthat.
It's hard to say. I mean, thisis not a court watching podcast,
and that's like I said, that'snot what I do is part of my day
job. The Supreme Court theSupreme Court gives a lot of

(01:01:01):
deference to to the executive inits numerated powers under the
constitution. So I don't know.Yeah.
I don't I don't know what butthat said, I mean, these these
are rulings that are limited tothe individual states. You know?

(01:01:22):
It is a ruling that is limitedto Illinois. It's not a national
injunction. Right?
And there's different rulingthat just happened, I believe,
yesterday in Washington wherethe was it the ninth circuit?

Danessa Watkins (01:01:37):
Ninth circuit. Yeah.

Jack Sanker (01:01:38):
Yeah. Ninth circuit ruled that the government could
deploy the the National Guard toWashington. That's gonna be
based on an entirely different

Danessa Watkins (01:01:46):
Portland, Oregon.

Jack Sanker (01:01:47):
Yeah. So yeah. Sorry. Oregon. I'm sorry.
Yeah. Not Washington. But that'sbased on an entirely separate
set of facts on the groundthere. Like, if, you know, it's
possible that, you know, thethat the federal government is
not able to enforce the lawsthrough normal forces in Oregon,

(01:02:07):
and therefore, are justified indeploying the guard, while at
the same time that's nothappening in Illinois. You know,
it's that's so fact dependent.
And so the ruling here islimited to the facts that are in
the record, which I I I don'tbelieve support the
administration's position.

Danessa Watkins (01:02:25):
Yeah. So it seems like then what the federal
government is doing in itscurrent emergency appeal to to
the Supreme Court is to get ablanket ruling, you know, going
forward that its actions to thisend are not reviewable. So
Right. As much as it is, yes, astate by state situation, it's I

(01:02:49):
think that's the goal right nowfor for the federal government
is to is to get that ruling sothat going forward, these
district courts aren't evengonna entertain a claim of
injunction from the statesbecause, you know, according to
the administration, they'regonna, you know, be able to get
the Supreme Court to say this isnonreviewable.

Jack Sanker (01:03:11):
Yeah. And and that by steps also the need for the
federal government to to showthese facts then, if that's the
case.

Danessa Watkins (01:03:20):
Right.

Jack Sanker (01:03:20):
They the federal government no longer has to meet
the factual burden of showingthere is a rebellion. You know?
They could just say you can tellyou can't tell us there's not
one. And Right. So be it.
So it'll be interesting to seewhat happens. I mean, this is
gonna move pretty quickly, Iwould imagine, because there's
now conflicting rulings with theOregon ruling and then, of
course, what's happening inIllinois. There was a ruling by

(01:03:41):
California, which is similar towhat the seventh circuit ruled
here as well. So there is acircuit split here. Now, again,
these are factually distinct.
So the court does not have tothe Supreme Court would doesn't
have to issue a unifying ruling,you know, saying what what

(01:04:02):
powers the government has ordoesn't have. The the supreme
court has the option of saying,based on the facts in each one
of these individual cases, theguard is should have been
permitted to be deployed here,but not here. Right? They it
doesn't have to take, you know,that position and say, the
government is allowed to do thisin every state. It can it can,

(01:04:24):
you know, stick to the factualconsiderations that are in place
in every state.
Unless unless they decide tosay, actually, district courts
have no authority to secondguess the executive here. Right.
And if that's the case, thenthen maybe none of this stuff
matters.

Danessa Watkins (01:04:44):
Oy.

Jack Sanker (01:04:45):
So we'll see. I I I will briefly touch on the the
other shoe that might drop herein Illinois, which is the
president has discussed multipletimes deploying the regular
military pursuant to theInsurrection Act. That's a

(01:05:09):
different can of worms. And thatwould probably be best suited
for its own episode becausethere's a whole different
history there, and then there'sdifferent standards and so on.
But by and large, the thegovernment can claim that there
is a insurrection, have separatestatutory statutory authority to

(01:05:33):
deploy then, like the marines,you know, if they wanted to, to
Illinois based on that.
So thinking about it now, Iimagine that the Trump
administration wants to get aruling on this issue that
they've put before the SupremeCourt on whether the district
court can even second guess thisat all before they pull the

(01:05:54):
lever on the Insurrection Actbecause that's kinda drastic.
And if they don't need to, thenthey won't. Right? If they get a
green light from the SupremeCourt to activate the guard
under title 10, then they don'tneed to go Insurrection Act
route, for example. So that'sgonna likely affect what the

(01:06:14):
administration decides to dohere if I had to guess.
I mean, I'm trying to just, youknow, think through how how
they're proceeding. Butdepending on how the supreme
court rules and if they don'ttake the bait and rule on, you
know, in a way that's gonnacurtail the district court's
ability to make these type ofrulings at all, then that might

(01:06:35):
be the next step, which issaying that there is a declaring
a a an active insurrection andthen activating the the US
military. And then, you know,we'll go through this process
again with the courts if that'sthe case. So that's what's
happening in Chicago, by theway.

Danessa Watkins (01:06:56):
Yeah.

Jack Sanker (01:06:56):
That's that's what that's what we're dealing with
here. And yeah. It's the otheranecdotes that I will share is
it's mostly day laborers,nannies, daycare workers. There

(01:07:20):
was an it's a it's a pretty wildstory, but there was a, a raid
on an apartment building on theSouth Side Of Chicago, about two
weeks ago. And it's, I believethere's 50 units or so in the
building, apartments in thebuilding.
Almost every single one of thosebuilding those units were,

(01:07:41):
searched in the in the middle ofthe night. This was the, again,
was all over the government'ssocial media. They produced this
to make it look like Black HawkDown, like, guys rappelling from
helicopters in the middle of thenight, folks, you know, in full
tactical gear, like, goingthrough hallways with their guns
out and everything. And thatbecause they believe their

(01:08:03):
justification is they're actingon, you know, information that
there were active gang members.It's the I believe is the the
Mexican cartel gang that thatthey're looking for here.
So illegal immigrants that arealso engaged in, you know,

(01:08:23):
smuggling, human trafficking,drug running, and so on. What
they said was that this buildingwas like a hub for that. Right?
What happened was one person hasbeen arrested from that raid.
Several 100 people weredetained, most of whom were US
citizens, as far as Iunderstand.

(01:08:46):
This involved people gettingtheir doors kicked down at,
like, two or three in themorning. Some people were, you
know, not dressed, you know,their people were woken up. They
they separated kids into onearea. There's reports from the
folks at witnesses that that allthe kids were put in handcuffs,

(01:09:07):
and they were loaded in the backof a U Haul van, and they sat
there for several hours. Andthen they sorted the adults out
in in different ways.
To this point, there has been norecord of a warrant having been
produced for this search. Therehas been nothing of that sort

(01:09:27):
that would, you know, to anormal a normal person kind of
justify or explain this seriouslike, I mean, this is I mean,
this was a military styleoperation here that happened in
Chicago. And like I said, onlyone person has been arrested,
for that rate of the several 100people who, like I said, they

(01:09:52):
were they had the doors kickeddown. They were, they also had
their apartments, like,ransacked. Like, people that
were there were they torethrough all of their stuff
looking for things.
So they had, you know, theirtheir possessions, their
apartments, and, of course, youknow, their own bodies locked
up, in the middle of the night.And most of these folks were
American citizens or legalresidents. So that's that level

(01:10:19):
of enforcement that we'redealing with here and the other
aspects of it, is ICE agentsgoing into day cares and getting
people out of there, going intojob sites and all those things.

Danessa Watkins (01:10:30):
Chicago Public Schools.

Jack Sanker (01:10:32):
Public Schools has been extremely disruptive.

Danessa Watkins (01:10:36):
Our local our court here, the chief judge just
issued a ruling, I wanna say aweek ago now, that any ICE agent
that is outside the courthouse,you know, looking to detain
someone or within the courthouseis subject to arrest by local

(01:10:59):
authorities because that wasanother issue is that you had
residents or, you know,immigrants coming to court
because that's part of, youknow, that's something they need
to do. They need to report orthey need to fill out paperwork
or they need to renew, and theywere being detained for, you
know, doing what they weresupposed to do.

Jack Sanker (01:11:22):
Yeah. So it's like I said, it's extremely
disruptive. The enforcementactions, the ICE actions,
operations, like that are it'sit's affecting my daily life
quite a bit. A lot of people's.So which, you know, doesn't
justify, you know, any acts of,like, retribution or violence or

(01:11:44):
anything on those lines.
Don't get me wrong here. Butit's creating quite a bit of
chaos in the city. And it'screating chaos that did not
exist prior to operation midwayblitz or whatever you wanna call
it. So, that's that's ourdispatch from Chicago. You can
find us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, YouTube, wherever you

(01:12:07):
get your shows.
We publishsh as often as we can.Typically, we've been doing
every two weeks lately. We'vebeen bogged down with our own
with our day jobs here aspracticing attorneys. But we
we've covered some topics todaythat we wanna stay on top of,
and check back in with us as wedo our best to keep you updated
on these particular stories.