Close call for democracy
Brad
Reed for Common Dreams
Among other things, the Times reported that Vance pushed for Donald
Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would allow for the US military to be
deployed on American streets, in an effort to shut down mass protests in Minnesota
against federal immigration enforcement
operations in the state.
A few days after US Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers fatally shot demonstrator Alex
Pretti in the streets of Minneapolis, the Times reported that Vance—who had
also elevated a baseless claim by Miller that Pretti had
been a “would-be assassin”—said invoking the Insurrection Act was necessary “to
crush the unrest in Minnesota.”
Vance also believed invoking the law would send a “message”
that “paid agitators could not get away with disrupting ICE operations”—even
though, as the Times noted, there is no evidence that Pretti; demonstrator
Renee Good, who was also killed by federal agents; or any other organizers in
Minnesota or elsewhere received any money in exchange for protesting.
However, right-wing attorney
Will Scharf quickly shot down Vance’s suggestion, noting that the Insurrection
Act is an instrument aimed at putting down armed rebellions rather than groups
of citizens blowing whistles at
ICE officers.
Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair then
made the political case against invoking the Insurrection Act.
“The scenes of federal agents in Minnesota already looked chaotic, he said, and the public was recoiling,” reported the Times. “He put three questions to the room: What does the Insurrection Act give us that we don’t already have? What changes on the ground would be worth the heat? What else could they win that would justify the public relations cost?”
“The room was quiet,” the Times added. “Nobody had a good
answer.”
The Times report also revealed that Trump adviser Stephen
Miller, Trump’s homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff, repeatedly
pushed the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for undocumented
immigrants, which would give the administration the power to carry out mass deportations without
being subjected to judicial oversight.
As in the case of Vance’s proposal, Scharf pushed back
against Miller’s suggestion, noting that courts have long held that habeas
corpus cannot be suspended unilaterally by the president and must be done by an
act of Congress.
“Even where Congress has explicitly suspended habeas corpus
rights,” Scharf wrote in a legal memo obtained by the Times, “the Supreme Court has
held that some alternative process must be provided to defendants, with
procedural safeguards akin to a habeas corpus action.”
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American
Immigration Council, said the Times’ reporting showed Miller “would happily
shred the Constitution into little pieces if he could,” before hopefully noting
that “even he wasn’t powerful enough to do it” in this instance.
University of Michigan Law School Professor Leah Litman
argued that the Times report showed some in the administration were at least
still somewhat conscious of public opinion when making decisions.
“In the story about the administration weighing suspending
habeas corpus and invoking the Insurrection Act, what moved the needle against
the Insurrection Act was concern about ‘public relations,’” Litman wrote. “Public pushback, agitation, and outcry can work.
Even now. Keep it up.”
