Appropriations limitations are, in my view (see here) the most important limitation on the president’s use of the military. That they promise to rejigger funds after the lapse in approps is no help. It just shows that even they recognize how completely unlawful this is.

3. 31 USC 1301a: “Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.”

I could go on! They even cite the last one in the NSPM!

1. Art 1, Sec 8, cl12: Congress shall have the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
2. Art 1, Sec 8, cl13: Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a Navy

Reform of this area of law, whenever that day comes, is going to require so much more than revising a few old statutes. There is an entire apparatus of statute, appropriations, and executive branch practice that needs to be deconstructed and laid to rest.

In short, although many of the statutes/legal theories being used right now are quite old, integration of the military into federal counter drug enforcement during the 80s laid the groundwork for DoD's current, complete cooption into the administration's deportation apparatus

There’s so much happening, and yet we can’t acquiesce in this becoming, or feeling, normal.

For a deeper dive into how the defense department acquiesced in an incredible array of requests, well beyond the traditional bounds of the power at issue here, I wrote about these facts uncovered during the LA litigation here

One shoutout from the incomparable @annabower.bsky.social and my Bluesky notifications explode! You're too kind :)

I totally recognize that there are reasonable arguments against my view (see here!) that the protective power has no foundation in the constitution. But to reject the theory behind the protective power while also upholding a limited manifestation of it seems like a particularly suboptimal result.

We're also not clearly told how this more limited protective mission is supposed to square with the Posse Comitatus Act. All of which leaves a lot of room for the executive to game the opinion--and certainly doesn't require that the deployment end.

Although he seems to reject the proposition that presidents have an inherent authority to protect federal property, persons, and functions, he later affirms that the military can be used to protect federal buildings. Why? We're not told.

Bonus points when the daycare won’t take your kid after said appointment because it would disrupt the rigorous plan we have set for your *checks notes* one year old.

Excellent analysis as always!

If you want to know more about the legal theory that’s supporting this WVNG deployment, I wrote a bit about it in the early days of the LA deployment.