Deploying troops to Chicago is not legally justified, says Illinois attorney general

Transcript:

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

OK. So what are the legal arguments here really? We’re going to hear from the man who filed a lawsuit to stop the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago. He is the attorney general of the state of Illinois, Kwame Raoul. Attorney General, good morning.

KWAME RAOUL: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

INSKEEP: OK. So as we just heard from Jaclyn, the judge said the troops can come for now, but further arguments lie ahead. So I want to hear your case, starting with the basic fact – what is the legal standard for the president taking charge of the National Guard in this way?

RAOUL: First of all, the judge didn’t say the troops can come. She said she hasn’t decided yet.

INSKEEP: Got it.

RAOUL: She delayed her decision.

INSKEEP: OK.

RAOUL: The legal basis is the militia clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine when the president can federalize the Guard. Posse comitatus says if you have a foreign invasion, which we do not have, or if you have a rebellion, or if the federal government is unable to carry out their responsibilities, then the Guard can be federalized. None of those conditions exist. And the federal government is doing their job. The local law enforcement is doing their job keeping peace. There’s no civil unrest. The only agitation we see, the only chaos we see is ICE and Border Patrol firing pepper gas at civilians, journalists, even Chicago police officers have been subjected to it. Protests are peaceful. There’s no civil unrest.

INSKEEP: We’ve been around Chicago. I was there the other day. I understand exactly what you’re saying. At the same time, I wonder if you’re going to have a challenge in court. You know, the president asserts that these conditions exist. And when he deployed troops in Los Angeles, somewhat different case, but the courts broadly deferred to the president’s opinion on those questions. They let him judge what’s an emergency, for example. Do you have any fact or argument that’s going to differ from Los Angeles?

RAOUL: Yeah. It’s clearly evident that this is political in nature, and it’s not in response to any unrest or any conditions on the ground. The president has said for months that he wanted to target Chicago. He’s disparaged Chicago. He and other members of his administration have said that. He’s posted memes saying Chicago is about to find out why we call it the Department of War. All of these communications coming from the president and members of his administration demonstrate that this is about political targeting, not about conditions on the ground in Chicago or anywhere in the state of Illinois.

INSKEEP: I’m wondering if you might run into another political problem down the line. You go to court, say, as you already have, and suppose the judge rules for you and finds that this is an improper deployment of the National Guard. The administration makes an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court says what it has said in numerous other cases this year – we’re going to defer to the president and let the president do what he wants, and we will decide sometime next year if it was legal or not.

RAOUL: Well, that would be a very dangerous thing to occur. This is unprecedented. This is about the president of the United States militarizing American cities. It’s un-American. This is not what we expect in our country to be subject to military deploying in our streets to do civilian law enforcement work. It’s not what we do in the United States of America.

INSKEEP: Is there any legal difference between summoning troops from Illinois, which the president has done, or using troops from Texas, which the governor of Texas has volunteered for service?

RAOUL: Well, there is slightly. You know, you don’t go into the question of whether or not our governor has consented to the National Guard, but yet and still, in order to deploy National Guardsmen into the streets into the state of Illinois, you still need to meet the prerequisites for deploying the National Guard.

INSKEEP: I want to ask – bring in another perspective here and ask how alarmed you feel people should be in Chicago of the idea of several hundred federal troops at this point, heading to their streets, or federalized troops. Earlier on the program, we spoke with Richard Hayes. He served as a former adjutant general of Illinois, meaning he was Illinois’ highest-ranking member of the National Guard. And he essentially was telling us earlier on the program, don’t get too upset here, even when the troops come. There are a lot of things they can’t and shouldn’t legally do. Let’s listen.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR CONTENT)

RICHARD HAYES: All soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Space Guardians, they have a duty to follow legal orders just as much as they have a duty to not follow illegal ones. So you’re duty-bound either direction. And so that is grounded in you since you really join the military, from basic training all the way through your career. And so they’re going to drive everything they do against the criteria that would be appropriate between legal and illegal orders.

INSKEEP: I understood General Hayes to be saying, it’s OK. Troops can guard federal buildings. That’s actually normal. They can do a number of other things, but they’re unlikely to be used for law enforcement to turn their weapons on the people or anything like that. Are you reassured?

RAOUL: I am not. In normal times, I would be with the normal leadership. But what we’ve seen in the Department of Defense and – is a disrespect for our nation’s well-decorated military leaders. And so I’m concerned about who the directions are going to come from. And that does cause alarm. I was in D.C. a couple of weeks ago, and, you know, I told people that they should be respectful of National Guardsmen because they’re not volunteering to do this. They’re being ordered to do this. And so I don’t have any negative feelings about National Guardsmen. They’re serving their country. But it’s how they’re being directed that I’m concerned about.

INSKEEP: We’ve heard the same thing from National Guard troops here in Washington, D.C. We’ve had reporters out talking with them and they’re like, hey, I’m just doing my job. I’m trying to be helpful here. But let me ask what you think the larger plan is here because I noticed that while the president has talked about rebellion and war, he’s only mobilized a few hundred troops to attempt to get them into Portland. He’s only mobilized a few hundred troops to try to get them to Chicago, a city of millions of people. Very small deployment. Do you assume that this is a way to prepare for some much larger deployment of troops if they can get the court’s permission to do so?

RAOUL: Well, one of the things that I have articulated, and we’ve said in our pleadings, is that the president has said, has articulated that he wants to use the cities of America as military training grounds. It’s come out of his own mouth. So there’s your evidence.

INSKEEP: Kwame Raoul is the attorney general of Illinois, and his office has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago. We’re waiting on a ruling. Attorney General, thanks so much.

RAOUL: Thanks for having me.

(SOUNDBITE OF I AM AN INSTRUMENT’S “PART IV”)