Bonnie Cherry
@bonniecherry.bsky.social
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Santa Clara University | PhD in Jurisprudence and Social Policy, Berkeley Law | Studying Federal Power & American Indian Sovereignty in U.S. Politics | neophyte bell ringer and crafter of liqueurs and other potions
Reposted by Bonnie Cherry
If it’s under Title 32 authority, the Texas guard remains under state control.
That would mean that one state is deploying armed forces into the territory of a non-consenting state.
And that’d clearly be a violation of the principle that states are co-equal, territorially limited sovereigns.
That would mean that one state is deploying armed forces into the territory of a non-consenting state.
And that’d clearly be a violation of the principle that states are co-equal, territorially limited sovereigns.
this is almost certainly under Title 32 authorities (meaning the TX guard will be nominally under TX state control but on a federal mission), meaning the posse comitatus issues that came up in California will not apply. that said, it raises a whole lot of other legal problems
BREAKING: Gov. JB Pritzker says the Trump administration has sent the Texas National Guard to Great Lakes Naval Base outside Chicago, awaiting orders to deploy to Chicago.
Trump administration officials will target Mexican Independence Day (Sept. 16) celebrations. @wttw.bsky.social
Trump administration officials will target Mexican Independence Day (Sept. 16) celebrations. @wttw.bsky.social
September 2, 2025 at 9:50 PM
If it’s under Title 32 authority, the Texas guard remains under state control.
That would mean that one state is deploying armed forces into the territory of a non-consenting state.
And that’d clearly be a violation of the principle that states are co-equal, territorially limited sovereigns.
That would mean that one state is deploying armed forces into the territory of a non-consenting state.
And that’d clearly be a violation of the principle that states are co-equal, territorially limited sovereigns.
Reposted by Bonnie Cherry
Pritzker: Any rational person who has spent even the most minimal amount of time studying human history has to ask themselves one important question: Once they get the citizens of this nation comfortable with the current atrocities committed under the color of law, what comes next
September 2, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Pritzker: Any rational person who has spent even the most minimal amount of time studying human history has to ask themselves one important question: Once they get the citizens of this nation comfortable with the current atrocities committed under the color of law, what comes next
Reposted by Bonnie Cherry
When President Trump used 32 U.S.C. § 502(f)(2) in 2020, that was to have out-of-state National Guard troops sent to D.C.—which has no sovereignty of its own.
Sending the un-federalized TX National Guard into IL without the latter’s consent raises *serious* Article IV problems that 2020 … didn’t.
Sending the un-federalized TX National Guard into IL without the latter’s consent raises *serious* Article IV problems that 2020 … didn’t.
September 2, 2025 at 10:43 PM
When President Trump used 32 U.S.C. § 502(f)(2) in 2020, that was to have out-of-state National Guard troops sent to D.C.—which has no sovereignty of its own.
Sending the un-federalized TX National Guard into IL without the latter’s consent raises *serious* Article IV problems that 2020 … didn’t.
Sending the un-federalized TX National Guard into IL without the latter’s consent raises *serious* Article IV problems that 2020 … didn’t.
Reposted by Bonnie Cherry
Read the experts, @bethanyberger.bsky.social & Greg Ablavsky, on the accurate history of Native peoples and birthright citizenship 👇
Trump & his lawyers rely on the 14th Amendment's treatment of Native people to redefine birthright citizenship. In our Essay coming out in the NYU Law Review Online, Greg Ablavsky & I show how wrong that argument is. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof: The Indian Law Context
<p><span>Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
papers.ssrn.com
April 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Read the experts, @bethanyberger.bsky.social & Greg Ablavsky, on the accurate history of Native peoples and birthright citizenship 👇
Reposted by Bonnie Cherry
I’ve been sitting on a paper. I’ve been reluctant to share this Elk v Wilkins piece because it was written almost entirely before the current birthright citizenship travesty. It’s coming out in Wash. U’s upcoming symposium volume.
April 26, 2025 at 3:55 PM
I’ve been sitting on a paper. I’ve been reluctant to share this Elk v Wilkins piece because it was written almost entirely before the current birthright citizenship travesty. It’s coming out in Wash. U’s upcoming symposium volume.