Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
Legislative attorney at CRS. NatSec, IHL, international law, etc. Army Intelligence officer in previous life. Opinions mine. No skeets from this account are attributable to CRS.
Pinned
Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
· Jun 20
Apparently the 9th Circuit interprets the 10 USC § 12406 requirement that “regular forces” are unable to execute the law means federal officers. Legislative history makes clear that regular forces means the regular armed forces as opposed to the militia.
Gov’t brief in Illinois NG case explains why “regular forces” in the context of §12406 is not a reference to standard military usage of a term of art, but instead means whoever regularly executes the law. One might object that the term could have been omitted without changing the meaning, but—>
November 11, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Gov’t brief in Illinois NG case explains why “regular forces” in the context of §12406 is not a reference to standard military usage of a term of art, but instead means whoever regularly executes the law. One might object that the term could have been omitted without changing the meaning, but—>
In its brief filed in the Oregon case challenging deployment of the Guard, the government argues that Nixon’s use of the precursor to 10 USC §12406 to task the NG with postal operations “without even referencing the standing military.” This seems to assume Nixon’s EO reference to “regular forces”—>
November 4, 2025 at 4:58 AM
In its brief filed in the Oregon case challenging deployment of the Guard, the government argues that Nixon’s use of the precursor to 10 USC §12406 to task the NG with postal operations “without even referencing the standing military.” This seems to assume Nixon’s EO reference to “regular forces”—>
I think it’s misreading the SCOTUS 14th Amendment §3 case to suggest Congress can just vote to disqualify a specific mayoral candidate. Rather, it seems to say Congress would have to enact a statute prescribing procedures for determining who is disqualified for aiding enemies of the Constitution.
Hey guys the Nazi group chat people think they can block Zohran from becoming mayor
November 2, 2025 at 10:08 PM
I think it’s misreading the SCOTUS 14th Amendment §3 case to suggest Congress can just vote to disqualify a specific mayoral candidate. Rather, it seems to say Congress would have to enact a statute prescribing procedures for determining who is disqualified for aiding enemies of the Constitution.
OMG
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
Supreme Court seems unsure how to proceed in case about whether Trump can deploy National Guard in Illinois. Asks for additional briefing:
October 29, 2025 at 7:58 PM
OMG
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
Wait a damn minute. I have it on good authority this is a word.
October 25, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Wait a damn minute. I have it on good authority this is a word.
Fun Fact: Definition of rebellion in 10 USC § 12406 for deploying NG. The term rebellion in the Dick Act was a holdover from R.S. § 1642 (which § 4 replaced). Which originated from § 1 of the Act of 1795, which did not mention rebellion. The term appeared when the R.S. were enacted in 1864 —>
October 23, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Fun Fact: Definition of rebellion in 10 USC § 12406 for deploying NG. The term rebellion in the Dick Act was a holdover from R.S. § 1642 (which § 4 replaced). Which originated from § 1 of the Act of 1795, which did not mention rebellion. The term appeared when the R.S. were enacted in 1864 —>
Amicus alert re “regular forces” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and National Guard deployments!
@jnklz.bsky.social @stevevladeck.bsky.social
@martylederman.bsky.social as amicus raises the argument that @jnklz.bsky.social has been posting about. Since no party raised the "regular forces" argument below, can it resonate with the SCOTUS?
@martylederman.bsky.social as amicus raises the argument that @jnklz.bsky.social has been posting about. Since no party raised the "regular forces" argument below, can it resonate with the SCOTUS?
@lizagoitein.bsky.social will Brennan Center be filing an amicus in 25A443 that makes the argument that @jnklz.bsky.social has set forth? So far, from what I can tell, no discussion of the meaning of "regular forces" in any brief filed w/SCOTUS.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
October 22, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Amicus alert re “regular forces” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and National Guard deployments!
Is it possible to turn off AI assistance for searches and just get sites that, y’know, contain the search terms you enter, without commenting that you must be a total idiot for entering them? I long for Back Then.
October 22, 2025 at 2:38 AM
Is it possible to turn off AI assistance for searches and just get sites that, y’know, contain the search terms you enter, without commenting that you must be a total idiot for entering them? I long for Back Then.
Good time to remember the October 21, 1967 March on the Pentagon, organized by the Mobe to protest the war. NYT published an oral history on the 50th anniversary (doesn’t appear that the Mobe paid participants tho). www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Opinion | The March on the Pentagon: An Oral History (Published 2017)
Fifty years ago, tens of thousands of people gathered in Washington to protest the Vietnam War. Here are some of their stories.
www.nytimes.com
October 13, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Good time to remember the October 21, 1967 March on the Pentagon, organized by the Mobe to protest the war. NYT published an oral history on the 50th anniversary (doesn’t appear that the Mobe paid participants tho). www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Fun fact: Insurrection Act. The Act of Feb. 28, 1795 was the first permanent provision permitting the president to call forth the militia. By 1873, when all statutes in force were codified into the Revised Statutes, section one was split up:
October 12, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Fun fact: Insurrection Act. The Act of Feb. 28, 1795 was the first permanent provision permitting the president to call forth the militia. By 1873, when all statutes in force were codified into the Revised Statutes, section one was split up:
Fun fact: Insurrection Edition.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
October 9, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Fun fact: Insurrection Edition.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
The government appears to conflate the National Guard of the United States (a reserve component) with the National Guard as the organized militia.
October 7, 2025 at 12:46 PM
The government appears to conflate the National Guard of the United States (a reserve component) with the National Guard as the organized militia.
This Senate Judiciary hearing scheduled for Tuesday looks interesting.
www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...
www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...
TIME CHANGE: Blue City Chaos and Tragedy: How the Trump Administration is Addressing the Human Cost of Soft On Crime Policies | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
www.judiciary.senate.gov
September 27, 2025 at 12:42 PM
This Senate Judiciary hearing scheduled for Tuesday looks interesting.
www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...
www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...
‘Bout time Wordle 1,535 2/6
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Also, today’s Connections looks like which groups of four walk into a bar
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Also, today’s Connections looks like which groups of four walk into a bar
September 1, 2025 at 12:20 PM
‘Bout time Wordle 1,535 2/6
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Also, today’s Connections looks like which groups of four walk into a bar
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Also, today’s Connections looks like which groups of four walk into a bar
Wordle 1,527 4/6
So close to nailing it
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
So close to nailing it
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
August 24, 2025 at 12:52 PM
Wordle 1,527 4/6
So close to nailing it
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
So close to nailing it
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I think a short 🧵on the National Guard and its constitutional status is in order.
The NG is ordinarily the state or territorial militia, subject to state authority but also subject to Congress’s authority to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” them. Art I, § 8 cl. 16.
The NG is ordinarily the state or territorial militia, subject to state authority but also subject to Congress’s authority to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” them. Art I, § 8 cl. 16.
August 23, 2025 at 5:51 PM
I think a short 🧵on the National Guard and its constitutional status is in order.
The NG is ordinarily the state or territorial militia, subject to state authority but also subject to Congress’s authority to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” them. Art I, § 8 cl. 16.
The NG is ordinarily the state or territorial militia, subject to state authority but also subject to Congress’s authority to provide for “organizing, arming, and disciplining” them. Art I, § 8 cl. 16.
Yeesh
Wordle 1,518 5/6
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 1,518 5/6
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
August 15, 2025 at 11:35 AM
Yeesh
Wordle 1,518 5/6
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 1,518 5/6
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I’ve been trying to figure out how the reference to “the regular forces” being unable to execute federal law in order to call up the NG under 10 U.S.C § 12406 has turned into ordinary law enforcement (or letter carriers, during the 1970 postal strike). Rather than regular troops.
August 13, 2025 at 1:45 AM
I’ve been trying to figure out how the reference to “the regular forces” being unable to execute federal law in order to call up the NG under 10 U.S.C § 12406 has turned into ordinary law enforcement (or letter carriers, during the 1970 postal strike). Rather than regular troops.
So it’s going to be that kind of day today, is it? Wordle 1,463 6/6
🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
June 21, 2025 at 10:35 AM
So it’s going to be that kind of day today, is it? Wordle 1,463 6/6
🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Apparently the 9th Circuit interprets the 10 USC § 12406 requirement that “regular forces” are unable to execute the law means federal officers. Legislative history makes clear that regular forces means the regular armed forces as opposed to the militia.
June 20, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Apparently the 9th Circuit interprets the 10 USC § 12406 requirement that “regular forces” are unable to execute the law means federal officers. Legislative history makes clear that regular forces means the regular armed forces as opposed to the militia.
Wait, is the spelling bee 🐝 openly mocking the attorney general?
June 7, 2025 at 11:13 AM
Wait, is the spelling bee 🐝 openly mocking the attorney general?
What a great country! Rather than repelling this “full-scale invasion” with military force, as would be justifiable in self defense, the U.S. is offering “concierge services” to persuade (and pay) the invading combatants to just go home.
Zelenskyy should have thought of that, right?
Zelenskyy should have thought of that, right?
Establishing Project Homecoming
Over the last 4 years, the United States has endured a full-scale invasion of aliens entering and remaining in the country illegally, causing a relentless
www.whitehouse.gov
May 10, 2025 at 1:28 PM
What a great country! Rather than repelling this “full-scale invasion” with military force, as would be justifiable in self defense, the U.S. is offering “concierge services” to persuade (and pay) the invading combatants to just go home.
Zelenskyy should have thought of that, right?
Zelenskyy should have thought of that, right?
TBF, the Constitution says the *privilege* of the Writ of Habeas can be suspended only when public safety requires it due to invasion or rebellion. Fortunately, in the absence of an armed invasion by a foreign military, courts have so far denied there’s an invasion.
May 9, 2025 at 8:57 PM
TBF, the Constitution says the *privilege* of the Writ of Habeas can be suspended only when public safety requires it due to invasion or rebellion. Fortunately, in the absence of an armed invasion by a foreign military, courts have so far denied there’s an invasion.
Forget the Alien Enemy Act. The Alien [Friend] Act has apparently been reenacted and invoked.
An Australian man with a US work visa was detained upon reentry, called a “retard” and told, “Trump is back in town; we’re doing things the way we should have always been doing them.”
He was held with 100 people including many Canadians.
Posters celebrating equity had DEI scribbled out in marker.
He was held with 100 people including many Canadians.
Posters celebrating equity had DEI scribbled out in marker.
April 12, 2025 at 11:19 PM
Forget the Alien Enemy Act. The Alien [Friend] Act has apparently been reenacted and invoked.
@markzaidesq.bsky.social
Question: How do private attorneys get security clearances? Who grants them? Trying to figure out how to cover them in statute that applies to employees.
Question: How do private attorneys get security clearances? Who grants them? Trying to figure out how to cover them in statute that applies to employees.
April 10, 2025 at 8:46 PM
@markzaidesq.bsky.social
Question: How do private attorneys get security clearances? Who grants them? Trying to figure out how to cover them in statute that applies to employees.
Question: How do private attorneys get security clearances? Who grants them? Trying to figure out how to cover them in statute that applies to employees.