U.S. Military Deployment

Context

Widespread protests in Los Angeles after ICE raids led to mass arrests, prompting then U.S. President Donald Trump to deploy military forces, raising legal questions about executive authority and federal overreach. The situation invites a comparative constitutional analysis with India’s provisions under Article 355 for internal security deployment.

Deployment of U.S. Military for Domestic Law Enforcement and Constitutional Parallels with India

United States Legal Framework:

Posse Comitatus Act (1878): Prohibits the use of federal armed forces for domestic law enforcement unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress.
Insurrection Act: Allows the U.S. President to deploy military during civil unrest or rebellion, either with or without the Governor’s consent.
Section 12406 of Title 10, U.S. Code: Authorizes federalization of the National Guard under rebellion or obstruction of federal laws. However, legal ambiguity exists in using it independently without invoking the Insurrection Act.
Article II (U.S. Constitution): Trump claimed 'inherent executive authority' to protect federal assets—controversial and debated among constitutional scholars.

Historical Use in the U.S.:

Key historical deployments under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson (Civil Rights Movement), Richard Nixon (anti-war protests), and George H. W. Bush (LA riots).
Trump's move to deploy active-duty forces without invoking the Insurrection Act faces legal challenges from California authorities as unconstitutional.

Indian Legal and Constitutional Parallels:

Article 355 (Indian Constitution): Obligates the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance.
Entry 2A, List I (Union List): Empowers the Union to deploy armed forces for aiding civil power.
Judicial Limitation: In Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court held that deployment of the armed forces must remain temporary and supportive of state civil authority. It cannot substitute governance or continue indefinitely.