Tonight In Your Rights: Trump's troops hit SCOTUS speed bump
Inside: Why Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered bad news to Trump and the latest in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's legal battles.
The Department of Defense reportedly has been planning to unleash a so-called “quick reaction force” to quell civil unrest by early next year.
For now, the Supreme Court put a crimp in those designs.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered bad news to Donald Trump about his ability to deploy the National Guard to Chicago — at least, for a little more than two weeks. The Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court’s order blocking Trump’s attempt to send in the military, and Trump’s Justice Department wanted the Supreme Court to immediately pause that order.
Instead of immediately obliging Trump’s request on the emergency docket, Barrett referred Trump’s application to the full court for consideration. The Court set a weeks-long briefing schedule on an issue neither of the sides had anticipated, signaling that the fight might be slower than anticipated and go in surprising directions.
The docket entry reads in its entirety:
“The application for stay presented to Justice Barrett is referred by her to the Court. The parties are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the following question: Whether the term “regular forces” refers to the regular forces of the United States military, and, if so, how that interpretation affects the operation of 10 U. S. C. §12406(3). The briefs, not to exceed 15 pages, are to be filed by Monday, November 10, 2025. Letter reply briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, are to be filed by Monday, November 17, 2025. Any brief for an amicus curiae under Rule 37.4, on that or other aspects of the application, must be filed by Monday, November 10, 2025.”
The briefing schedule alone amounts to a significant legal defeat for Trump.
On Oct. 17, the Justice Department’s solicitor general — Trump’s former personal lawyer John Sauer — asked for an “immediate administrative stay” of two lower court orders blocking the deployment of the military to “prevent ongoing and intolerable risks to the lives and safety of federal personnel” in Chicago.
Nearly two weeks after the filing of that application, the Supreme Court hasn’t granted that request, and it set a briefing schedule extending until the middle of next month. But the legal issue that the court propped up for review could be telling.
Under Section 12406, Trump can only federalize the National Guard in the event of an invasion, rebellion or inability to execute the laws of the United States using the regular forces. Most of the litigation in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago has revolved around the third prong of the statute, but none of those cases defined what “regular forces” means.
In an amicus brief, Georgetown University Law Professor Marty Lederman offered an answer that hasn’t come up in the other litigation: “regular forces” means the U.S. military.
“Because President Trump has not used regular military forces to assist or protect ICE in the Chicago area, he cannot—and he has not—determined that the Executive Branch would be ‘unable’ to execute any federal laws with the aid of such regular military forces,” Lederman wrote.
The Supreme Court appears to be taking that possibility seriously.
A former high-ranking Justice Department official during the Obama administration, Lederman said that if he’s correct, Trump loses: “Nothing in the Constitution ‘expressly’ authorizes the President (or the Secretary of Defense) to use the armed forces to execute federal laws.”
Read Lederman’s brief in full here.
Trump ally, DOJ No. 3, enters Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
The government is deploying another big legal gun against Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who represented a slew of Trump allies before becoming his third most powerful Justice Department official.
In 2023, Woodward represented Trump’s co-defendant and “body man” Waltine Nauta in the classified documents case, and he was seen boarding Trump’s private plane after his first court appearance. Woodward represented Kash Patel in connection with the grand jury investigation of that case before Trump nominated Patel to become his FBI director.
On Thursday, Woodward submitted a legal brief seeking to quash Abrego’s subpoena to compel Trump’s former criminal defense attorney turned Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify next week at an evidentiary hearing.
A federal judge cited Blanche’s interview on Fox host Laura Ingraham’s show as evidence supporting Abrego’s claims of vindictive prosecution. Blanche said that the government began investigating Abrego because a federal judge “questioned” the administration’s decision to spirit him out of the country to El Salvador, where a court order blocked his deportation.
To put that into perspective, Trump’s Justice Department sent its No. 3 attorney (a go-to lawyer for Trump allies) to shield its No. 2 attorney (Trump’s criminal defense lawyer), in service of an argument that it’s not vindictively prosecuting the defendant.
Meanwhile, Abrego’s attorney Sean Hecker argued that U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw should dismiss the case because the government stonewalled the evidence that Abrego needed to prepare for next week’s hearing on Tues., Nov. 4 and Weds., Nov. 5. Abrego’s defense team wants the judge to cancel the hearing and resolve the case in their favor.
All Rise News will cover the proceedings if the evidentiary hearing remains on the calendar.
“Prince” Andrew no longer?
Buckingham Palace today released a statement announcing the initiation of a process to remove Prince Andrew’s titles and honors.
“Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor,” the statement said. “His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation. These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”
“Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse,” the statement ends.
This extraordinary statement falls shortly after the posthumous publication of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir “Nobody’s Girl,” in which she wrote that Andrew “believed having sex with me was his birthright.”
Giuffre’s family members also released a statement.
“Today, an ordinary American girl from an ordinary American family, brought down a British prince with her truth and extraordinary courage,” they wrote. “Virginia Roberts Giuffre, our sister, a child when she was sexually assaulted by Andrew, never stopped fighting for accountability for what had happened to her and to countless other survivors like her. Today, she declares victory.”
Also on Thursday, a federal judge signaled plans for the imminent release of a trove of exhibits and other files associated with Jeffrey Epstein survivors’ since settled lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase.
Those files will become public by tomorrow (Friday) at noon Eastern Time.
Some hopeful developments at last! Thank you, Adam. Can anyone “read” Barrett?
Why do I feel like Coney Barrett will fold? Give a meager few lines of reason, but go ahead and give Trump a go ahead with the other right wingers, because it is Trumps birthright? Fingers crossed for Kilmar. I think he has a best seller book in him. Thanks as always Adam.