DOJ: National Guard 'Not Judicially Reviewable'... Unless It's a Border Wall
Newsweek reported on the Trump DOJ's argument that National Guard deployments, specifically federalizing for foreign wars, were outside judicial review. This position, asserting unchecked executive power, echoed past administrations justifying military actions with minimal oversight. Yet, when faced with governors deploying their Guard to the border, the very same federal government suddenly found
myriad ways to assert federal authority and judicial review, often to halt state actions. One might wonder: is supreme executive power for federal use only? When governors deploy the Guard in ways disapproved by Washington, say, resisting federal vaccine mandates or securing state borders, the judiciary suddenly finds its voice. The pattern is clear: 'states' rights' and 'judicial review' are
convenient buzzwords, deployed or discarded based on which party holds power and what policy they wish to enforce or bypass. The ultimate authority, it appears, is determined by expediency, not consistent legal principle.