Testing

Monday, 2 February 2026

ACLU: Cómo una ley de la época de COVID que prohíbe las "noticias falsas" en Puerto Rico acecha a la prensa

Cómo una ley de la época de COVID que prohíbe las "noticias falsas" en Puerto Rico acecha a la prensa

En el punto más crítico de la pandemia de COVID-19, cuando Puerto Rico aprobó una ley que pretendía prohibir las “noticias falsas”, dos periodistas temieron que la prohibición los expusiera a procesos penales por sus reportajes los cuales eran críticos sobre el gobierno, sus funcionarios y sus medidas de respuesta a la emergencia. Según la ley, cualquier persona acusada podía enfrentar hasta tres años de cárcel y miles de dólares en multas.

La ley se dirigía a cualquier persona acusada de dar "una falsa alarma" o difundir información falsa que resultara en un riesgo para la vida, la salud o la propiedad durante una emergencia pública declarada en la isla. ACLU y ACLU de Puerto Rico presentaron una demanda para impugnar la ley en mayo de 2020, representando a Sandra Rodríguez Cotto y Rafelli González Cotto, ambos periodistas de larga trayectoria que han cubierto emergencias públicas. El Tribunal de Apelaciones de EE. UU. para el Primer Circuito, que decidirá sobre la constitucionalidad de la ley, escuchó los argumentos orales del caso en octubre.

"Creí que era esencial seguir adelante con este litigio porque el gobierno había cruzado una línea que amenazaba la esencia misma de la participación democrática", dijo González Cotto. "Cuando el estado se otorga a sí mismo el poder de decidir qué información es verdadera o falsa, especialmente durante una emergencia, abre la puerta a la censura, la intimidación y el amordazamiento del escrutinio legítimo".

En este segmento de Prensa en peligro, examinaremos el desafío de ACLU a esa ley en Puerto Rico y por qué proteger las "noticias falsas" de la regulación gubernamental protege todas las noticias.

Las leyes contra la desinformación pueden limitar la responsabilidad del gobierno

La demanda argumenta que permitir que el gobierno se convierta en el árbitro del debate público viola la Primera Enmienda. En este caso, la ley intenta criminalizar los informes que el gobierno considera peligrosamente falsos, poniendo en riesgo los derechos de cada periodista y poniendo en peligro al público en el proceso. En el 2017, por ejemplo, el secretario de la gobernación acusó públicamente a Rodríguez Cotto de mentir después de que ella revelara que la cifra reportada por el gobierno de los muertos a causa del huracán María estaba muy por debajo a la cifra real. Si la ley en cuestión hubiese estado vigente en ese entonces, podrían haberla procesado penalmente.

Puerto Rico no es el único lugar que ha introducido una ley contra las "noticias falsas", pero si se permite que la ley se mantenga, se encontrará en una compañía preocupante, como señaló la Clínica de la Primera Enmienda de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Georgia en su alegato de amicus curiae en nombre de grupos de libertad de expresión y prensa. Hungría, por ejemplo, prohíbe la cobertura "desequilibrada" y exige que los medios se registren ante el estado. Rusia ha castigado duramente a periodistas por su cobertura del gobierno bajo la apariencia de combatir las "noticias falsas". Egipto ha prohibido medios de comunicación por "publicar noticias falsas" sobre Israel y Gaza.

"Un pueblo libre requiere una prensa libre", dice Brian Hauss, subdirector del Proyecto de Expresión, Privacidad y Tecnología de ACLU y abogado principal del caso. "Si los recientes ataques de la administración Trump a los medios, desde CBS News hasta Jimmy Kimmel, nos han enseñado algo, es que no se puede permitir que el gobierno dicte qué debatimos o cómo lo debatimos. Pero eso es exactamente lo que esta ley intenta hacer".

En 2023, un juez federal estuvo de acuerdo y derogó la ley: "Los tribunales deben estar vigilantes para asegurar que la Primera Enmienda no se debilite durante periodos de emergencias declaradas. La función de vigilancia de la libre expresión nunca es más vital que durante una crisis a gran escala".

¿Puede el gobierno regular las noticias falsas y los engaños?

La ley en Puerto Rico es alarmante precisamente por su lenguaje amplio: podría permitirle al gobierno controlar todo tipo de información durante crisis como una pandemia o un huracán. Un poder de censura tan abarcador y su efecto y el consiguiente efecto inhibidor sobre expresiones que se aparten de la narrativa oficial del gobierno, podría poner en peligro a las personas al limitar sus fuentes de información y disuadir a periodistas e individuos de contradecir a quienes ostentan el poder. Por ejemplo, como describió el Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press en su alegato de amicus curiae (https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/rodriguez-cotto-v-gonzalez-colon/) a nombre de organizaciones de medios, leyes de “noticias falsas” como la de Puerto Rico podrían haber disuadido a reporteros de cuestionar los intentos de la administración de George W. Bush de minimizar la devastación causada por el huracán Katrina.

Aunque Puerto Rico insiste en que su ley de "noticias falsas" es esencial para evitar que las falsas alarmas causen pánicos masivos peligrosos, la regla de la FCC sobre engaños en las transmisiones de la década de 1990 demuestra que es posible redactar una ley que proteja la seguridad pública sin socavar las libertades de prensa. Esa regla se introdujo como una forma de combatir los engaños radiales comunes a partir de los años 70s. Varios programas de radio realizaron montajes falsos al aire con fines promocionales, que iban desde confesiones falsas de crímenes violentos hasta secuestros ficticios de locutores. En un ejemplo muy sonado, el director de la emisora WALE-AM en Rhode Island anunció falsamente que el presentador del programa, Steve White, había recibido un disparo en la cabeza afuera del estudio mientras se tomaba un descanso para fumar.

El anuncio provocó que la policía y los medios acudieran a la estación, desperdiciando recursos públicos y causando pánico entre los oyentes. Después de décadas de engaños similares con diversos grados de respuesta pública, la FCC creó la regla de engaños en transmisiones basada en los comentarios de los radiodifusores y del público. La regulación castiga la transmisión de información falsa sobre un "crimen o catástrofe" si la estación sabe que la información es falsa, es prácticamente seguro que el discurso causará un daño público inmediato y sustancial, y la transmisión, de hecho, crea ese daño.

La mayoría de las estaciones saben que la regla de engaño puede invocarse solo si emitieron, por ejemplo, una amenaza de bomba falsa o una transmisión engañosa sobre un tiroteo masivo. Esto contrasta fuertemente con el lenguaje amplio de la ley de Puerto Rico, que potencialmente criminaliza el discurso sobre cualquier tema durante una emergencia declarada, desde especulaciones sobre el origen de COVID-19 hasta reportajes sobre el resultado de una elección.

Como ha sostenido el Tribunal Supremo, el gobierno no tiene la autoridad para castigar el discurso falso, especialmente en asuntos de interés público, excepto en contextos muy limitados, como prohibir el perjurio o el hacerse pasar por un policía. La ley de Puerto Rico va mucho más allá de esos contextos limitados y viola la Primera Enmienda.

Protegiendo el derecho de libertad de prensa para los puertorriqueños y más allá

Para Puerto Rico, el futuro está en el aire. El gobierno apeló el fallo de 2023 que derogó la ley, y el Primer Circuito escuchó la apelación en octubre. El resultado tendrá implicaciones mucho más allá de los reportajes en la isla.

Para González Cotto, este es el punto: "Para mí, lo que estaba —y sigue estando— en juego es si los puertorriqueños pueden vivir en una sociedad en la que cuestionar al gobierno está protegido, no criminalizado", dijo. "Este caso nunca se trató solo de una ley. Se trataba de establecer un precedente que impidiera que futuras administraciones utilicen leyes vagas como armas para silenciar la disidencia”.

La historia enseña que sin una prensa robustamente libre, el gobierno puede salirse con la suya en abusos de poder con poca oposición. Para González Cotto, los periodistas son un medio a través del cual el público puede ejercer su poder para cuestionar, verificar y responsabilizar a las instituciones. "Una prensa libre asegura que ningún gobierno, corporación o interés poderoso pueda operar sin control", aseveró. "Cuando la prensa es restringida, el público se vuelve vulnerable. Cuando la prensa es libre, el público se vuelve invencible”.

En un momento en el que el gobierno está restringiendo el acceso de la prensa y utilizando a la FCC para castigar a comediantes, mantener esa libertad es más importante que nunca. Permitir que el gobierno decida qué es verdad y qué no lo es, resulta peligroso para todos nosotros. Pero la historia también nos ha enseñado algo más: cuando luchamos por ella, la Primera Enmienda es lo suficientemente fuerte como para capear la tormenta.

TAMBIÉN:

Lea este blog en inglés aquí.

Published February 3, 2026 at 02:42AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/oR6nFxM

ACLU: Cómo una ley de la época de COVID que prohíbe las "noticias falsas" en Puerto Rico acecha a la prensa

Cómo una ley de la época de COVID que prohíbe las "noticias falsas" en Puerto Rico acecha a la prensa

Las leyes contra la desinformación pueden limitar la responsabilidad del gobierno

¿Puede el gobierno regular las noticias falsas y los engaños?

Protegiendo el derecho de libertad de prensa para los puertorriqueños y más allá

TAMBIÉN:

Lea este blog en inglés aquí.

Published February 2, 2026 at 09:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/XUrJ7yu

Wednesday, 28 January 2026

ACLU: Can It Be a Felony to Possess a Gun if You Smoke Weed?

Can It Be a Felony to Possess a Gun if You Smoke Weed?

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case that asks: Is it constitutional for the government to charge someone as a felon because they used marijuana and had a gun locked in a safe? For the ACLU, which is co-counsel in this case, the answer is a clear no.

The government charged Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for “unlawful users” of controlled substances or those “addicted to” a controlled substance to possess a firearm. The government argues that Hemani is an “unlawful user” of marijuana, a drug nearly half of all Americans say they have tried at some point in their lives and that is now legal in some form – either for recreational or medical use – in nearly every state in the country.

The problems with this prosecution are many.

Is it constitutional for the government to charge someone as a felon because they used marijuana and had a gun locked in a safe?

First, the law is impermissibly vague. What is an “unlawful user”? The government says it’s a “habitual user.” But the word “habitual” never appears in the statute, and it is unclear what either of these terms even means. Do they mean someone who smoked marijuana last weekend? Six months ago? Consider a medical marijuana patient with a gun locked in a safe? Or a veteran who uses marijuana to manage chronic pain? Someone who smokes four times a month? Or does it have to be two times a week or five days a week? Vague statutes like 922(g)(3) invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Second, under the government’s theory, they don’t have to prove that a person carried a gun at the same time they used marijuana, let alone that they used a gun recklessly in any way. Take, for example, someone who keeps a gun safely secured at home and consumes marijuana a few days a week. According to the government, those facts alone mean that a person could be convicted of a felony and potentially sentenced to prison. Those are not valid grounds to lock someone up.

Third, the government hasn’t met its burden under the Second Amendment to justify this prosecution. The court has explained that it evaluates the constitutionality of laws that regulate gun rights by looking at the country’s “history and tradition” of firearm regulations. Here, history provides no support for the government categorically disarming --and prosecuting-- people based on mere use of marijuana.

Fourth, laws that lack clear boundaries do more than create confusion – they create conditions for unequal treatment. When criminal statutes are vague or open-ended, enforcement decisions are left to discretion. History shows how such discretion operates: Communities of color are more likely to bear the weight of prosecution. As we say in the brief, nobody disputes drugs and guns can be a dangerous combination. But even the most serious societal problems must be addressed by laws that provide fair notice of what they prohibit—especially when they criminalize the exercise of fundamental rights.

Clarity in criminal laws is all the more important when the stakes are so high. Beyond facing a prison sentence, punishment under Section 922(g)(3) means an individual will have a felony conviction that can create lifelong barriers to employment, housing, education, and full democratic participation, consequences that ripple outward to entire families and communities.

We cannot continue to lock people up based on unfounded assumptions – particularly of “dangerousness” – or without fundamental notions of fairness. That’s why we’re in court arguing that the prosecution of Mr. Hemani is unfair and unconstitutional.

Published January 29, 2026 at 12:52AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/6BvYpak

ACLU: Can It Be a Felony to Possess a Gun if You Smoke Weed?

Can It Be a Felony to Possess a Gun if You Smoke Weed?

The problems with this prosecution are many.

Is it constitutional for the government to charge someone as a felon because they used marijuana and had a gun locked in a safe?

Published January 28, 2026 at 07:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/eDj8vcm

Tuesday, 20 January 2026

ACLU: One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One year ago, President Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term. Within hours of his inauguration, it was clear that he and his administration would, once again, test the Constitution and the willingness of our nation’s institutions and people to defend it. However, what stood out most to us during the last year has been the volume, pace, and persistence of the second Trump administration’s assault on many of our most fundamental rights and freedoms. There were multiple flashpoints throughout the last year, as the administration’s “shock and awe” strategy yielded a sustained and aggressive assault on civil rights and civil liberties resulting in 225 executive orders signed (as of December).

Near daily efforts to dismantle civil rights and civil liberties protections, intimidate marginalized communities, and upend the rule of law threatened to normalize the previously unthinkable. At the U.S. Supreme Court, blows to trans rights and free speech set dangerous precedents. At the state level, attacks on core protections for reproductive freedom and voting rights persisted.

Although we faced an incredibly bleak landscape for civil rights and civil liberties, the ACLU did not relent because we were ready on day one and able to meet the Trump administration’s shock and awe strategy with an even more shocking and awesome response. Months before the 2024 election, we studied President Trump’s campaign promises and Project 2025, and, in a series of public memos, laid out the civil rights and civil liberties threats a second Trump presidency would pose. We anticipated the renewed attacks on immigrants and other vulnerable communities, expanded domestic use of federal force, and systematic efforts to suppress dissent.

Yet, defending the Constitution in this environment has required more than advance preparation and a sense of urgency. It necessitated an unshakable belief that democratic norms are worth fighting for even when the pressure seems unyielding. That’s why we mobilized our lawyers, advocates, organizers, storytellers, and supporters to delay unconstitutional policies before they took effect, dilute their reach when full blockage wasn’t immediately possible, and defeat them through courts, public pressure, and sustained organizing.

One year in, our work is guided by a simple principle: we are only in a constitutional crisis if we allow ourselves to be.

We Fought — and Won — in Court

Mere hours after taking office, President Trump issued a blitz of executive orders and policy directives that immediately threatened birthright citizenship, trans rights, freedom of speech, and voting rights. Our response reflected a core constitutional principle: rights endure not because leaders respect them, but because people and institutions insist on enforcing them.

Birthright Citizenship. Two hours after President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship — a constitutional guarantee for more than 150 years — the ACLU sued. When a Supreme Court ruling threatened partial enforcement of the order, we shifted tactics, filing a class-action lawsuit that protected more than 129,000 children from harm. This spring, the ACLU’s National Legal Director, Cecillia Wang, will argue the case before the Court that the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment.

Alien Enemies Act. We also sued the Trump administration over the president’s unlawful and unprecedented invocation of a centuries-old wartime act, the Alien Enemies Act, to accelerate mass deportations. This spring, the ACLU scored a critical legal victory with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Additionally, in December, a federal judge ruled that the Venezuelan men sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador were denied due process and ordered the government to facilitate their return or offer hearings compliant with due process.

Free Speech. The ACLU acted swiftly to secure the release of international students and scholars Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri who were detained by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian speech. Claiming their speech threatened U.S. foreign policy, the government sought to intimidate dissent by using immigration enforcement to punish lawful political expression. In addition to securing the students’ release, the ACLU was able to protect them from immediate deportation while their cases move through the courts, reaffirming that political advocacy is not grounds for exile.

Troop Deployment. We took action when federal troops and National Guard units were sent to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., under the pretext of controlling protests. Through lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs, and aggressive transparency demands, we forced scrutiny of these actions and constrained their scope so that this grave abuse of power will never be normalized. Thanks to a string of court victories prohibiting deployments, including in Illinois v. Trump, as well as sustained political opposition, President Trump announced on New Year’s Eve that he was abandoning efforts to use the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland.

Equal Protection. When President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments to anyone under 19 years old, we challenged the order. A court then temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing it.

The ACLU's legal docket comprises 239 legal actions and 139 lawsuits. More importantly, a majority (64 percent) of our cases succeeded in delaying, diluting, or defeating the Trump administration's policies. As a result of our’s and other organizations’ efforts, the courts continue to be a check on the power of the presidency, just as our Constitution demanded.

We Mobilized Communities and Built Power

As proud as we are of our work in the courts, we know that we will not be successful unless millions of individuals demand change. Across the country, ACLU affiliates and partners trained more than 84,000 people on their rights and enrolled 180,000 individuals in our People Power activist program. When protests were met with militarized responses, we rapidly expanded Know Your Rights training nationwide, equipping tens of thousands of people to demonstrate safely and lawfully. We also mobilized our supporters and members of Congress to advocate on behalf of immigrants facing neglect and abuse in detention centers.

In what became one of the most visible free-speech confrontations in recent decades, political pressure led ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! after FCC leadership threatened broadcast licenses over a monologue they found objectionable. The ACLU mobilized more than 500 prominent artists and more than 50,000 supporters to sign an open letter criticizing Trump administration’s attempts at censorship. Within hours of our mobilization, the show returned to air — stopping the censorship before it could harden into precedent.

The Road Ahead: 2026 and Beyond

As we enter 2026, the stakes feel as high as ever. In coming months, the courts will make decisions that affect civil rights and civil liberties and determine whether marginalized communities can fully participate in public life for years to come. This year also marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence — a moment that reminds us of the centrality of liberty and equality to the founding of our nation.

Having led the ACLU through eight presidential administrations, I’ve learned one thing for certain: progress is never permanent, and setbacks are never inevitable. Yet, our work endures. What the ACLU does over the next three years and how well we do it will play a role in shaping the course of American history.

This is because democracy doesn’t defend itself — people do. And together, we will keep showing up.

Published January 20, 2026 at 06:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/EHin1kq

ACLU: One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One Year In: Defending the Constitution Under a Second Trump Administration

One year in, our work is guided by a simple principle: we are only in a constitutional crisis if we allow ourselves to be.

We Fought — and Won — in Court

Birthright Citizenship. Two hours after President Trump issued an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship — a constitutional guarantee for more than 150 years — the ACLU sued. When a Supreme Court ruling threatened partial enforcement of the order, we shifted tactics, filing a class-action lawsuit that protected more than 129,000 children from harm. This spring, the ACLU’s National Legal Director, Cecillia Wang, will argue the case before the Court that the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment.

Alien Enemies Act. We also sued the Trump administration over the president’s unlawful and unprecedented invocation of a centuries-old wartime act, the Alien Enemies Act, to accelerate mass deportations. This spring, the ACLU scored a critical legal victory with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Additionally, in December, a federal judge ruled that the Venezuelan men sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador were denied due process and ordered the government to facilitate their return or offer hearings compliant with due process.

Free Speech. The ACLU acted swiftly to secure the release of international students and scholars Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Dr. Badar Khan Suri who were detained by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian speech. Claiming their speech threatened U.S. foreign policy, the government sought to intimidate dissent by using immigration enforcement to punish lawful political expression. In addition to securing the students’ release, the ACLU was able to protect them from immediate deportation while their cases move through the courts, reaffirming that political advocacy is not grounds for exile.

Troop Deployment. We took action when federal troops and National Guard units were sent to cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., under the pretext of controlling protests. Through lawsuits, friend-of-the-court briefs, and aggressive transparency demands, we forced scrutiny of these actions and constrained their scope so that this grave abuse of power will never be normalized. Thanks to a string of court victories prohibiting deployments, including in Illinois v. Trump, as well as sustained political opposition, President Trump announced on New Year’s Eve that he was abandoning efforts to use the National Guard in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland.

Equal Protection. When President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to withhold funds from medical providers and institutions that provide gender-affirming medical treatments to anyone under 19 years old, we challenged the order. A court then temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing it.

We Mobilized Communities and Built Power

The Road Ahead: 2026 and Beyond

This is because democracy doesn’t defend itself — people do. And together, we will keep showing up.

Published January 20, 2026 at 01:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/2Nz5Xwq

Friday, 16 January 2026

ACLU: Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained

Trump’s Threat to Invoke the Insurrection Act, Explained

President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in Minnesota this week, continuing to stoke fear and chaos in a situation his administration created by unleashing lawless, armed federal agents against our communities..

This is not the first time the president has threatened to invoke the act, which Congress intended presidents to use only for specified and extreme emergencies, in his first or second administrations. Each time, it has been clear that President Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act would be unnecessary, inflammatory, and a dangerous abuse of power.

The Insurrection Act is meant to be a rarely-used exception to our foundational principle that the American military should not police the American people on domestic soil. That general rule exists for good reasons: military policing of civilians is corrosive to democracy and it puts our civil liberties and rights in peril.

Despite this, Trump renewed his threat. He did so after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer killed 37-year-old mother Renee Nicole Good during a reckless and violent federal immigration enforcement operation, to which the American people have responded with overwhelmingly peaceful protests.

Federal agents’ abuses of authority and violations of constitutional rights are already brazen and cruel. President Trump’s Insurrection Act threat is contrived to escalate conflict and intimidate people exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out against injustice and observe federal agents’ activities in public spaces. The threat itself shows why the Insurrection Act is unjustified: the president would be using troops to undermine our rights, not protect them.

We’ve seen this pattern in Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago and other cities. Federal officers descend on communities to conduct violent immigration raids, instill fear, and profile residents based on race. When the American people exercise their First Amendment right to protest, federal officers respond with recklessness, injuring and maiming community members.

Below we break down what the Insurrection Act is, its long history, and how it could impact our communities if it’s invoked.

What is happening in Minnesota?

Since December, the Trump administration has deployed nearly 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to Minnesota. In response to their lawless approach — characterized by masked and armed federal agents conducting violent raids, racial profiling, and violations of people’s rights, including U.S. citizens’ — overwhelmingly peaceful protests have grown in size.

These protests ballooned both in Minnesota and across the country after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother and American citizen. Yet the Trump administration doubled down on its tactics. Federal agents have continued their reckless raids and even shot three other people in Minneapolis and Portland. President Trump posted on Truth Social falsely characterizing protestors as “insurrectionists” and said he would invoke the Insurrection Act if state officials did not quell protests in Minnesota.

But “the real risk to people's safety comes from ICE and other federal agents' violence against our communities,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The killing of Renee Good starkly shows what happens when ICE operates without accountability.”

What is the Insurrection Act?

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to use federal troops to police civilians in certain specified and extreme emergencies.

The general rule in our system is that presidents are prohibited from using the federal military for law enforcement on domestic soil. The Insurrection Act is a narrow exception and is rarely used specifically because unchecked power is a threat to liberty and can lead to tyranny.

The ACLU and others have long criticized the Insurrection Act as far too vague, but it still has important restrictions on when presidents can use it. It contains three provisions: one that authorizes the president to deploy federal or federalized National Guard troops at the request of a state, to suppress an insurrection against the state’s government. Two other provisions do not require a state governor’s request, but presidents may only invoke them to deploy federal troops to suppress insurrection, violence, or conspiracy and enforce federal law when courts or ordinary law enforcement cannot, or to protect civil rights.

Congress, the courts, and the executive branch have therefore treated invocation of the Insurrection Act as a last resort, to put down forcible state resistance to a court order, or to enforce federal rights when state authorities are entirely unable or unwilling to do so.

That’s far from the situation in Minnesota or anywhere else in the country.

Has the Insurrection Act been invoked before?

In 230 years, presidents have invoked the law only 30 times. Not only is presidential invocation of the act rare, it’s almost always controversial. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal opinions for the president, has generally advised caution and restraint in invoking it.

The last time a president invoked the Insurrection Act without a state governor’s consent was more than 60 years ago. In keeping with the act’s constraints, in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson invoked it to protect civil-rights protestors after Alabama state troopers attacked peaceful activists at the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday. President Trump, by contrast, appears bent on using the Insurrection Act based on falsehoods and to enable further federal deprivation of people’s rights. Under the current conditions in Minnesota, Trump’s invocation of the act would be an unprecedented and dangerous use of the military on American soil.

What happened in Trump’s previous deployments of troops?

Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act comes after months of legal defeats surrounding his previous deployments of military forces domestically.

In 2025, in spite of over state governors’ objections, President Trump forcibly federalized and deployed — or attempted to deploy — National Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. He did so after issuing a June 7th Presidential Memorandum, claiming authority under a rarely used statute to federalize and deploy National Guard members (and active-duty military troops) without geographic or temporal limitations to protect federal property and functions and enforce federal law.

California, Oregon, and Illinois filed lawsuits challenging these actions, and federal district courts in all three states ruled against the president, as did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Illinois case.

Courts rejected the president’s arguments that he alone can decide when to deploy troops and courts have no role to play. The district court in California found that troops had violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from carrying out law enforcement functions. The district court in Oregon found that the president’s determination that federal law enforcement officers could not enforce federal law in Portland was “simply untethered to the facts,” there was no “rebellion” or a “danger of rebellion” in the city, and that the forced federalization of Oregon National Guard members violated the Constitution. The district court in Illinois found that federal officials’ versions of the facts were “not reliable” and identified a “troubling trend” of government officials “equating protests with riots,” indicating “both bias and lack of objectivity.”

Finally, the Supreme Court halted Trump’s attempt to send troops into Chicago, recognizing that troop deployment to carry out federal law is “exceptional” and the Trump administration had not legally justified it. On December 31, Trump announced that he would end his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles, and those troops have now been withdrawn. Federalized National Guard troops remain deployed in Washington, D.C., however, courts have held that because D.C. is not a state, the president exercises unique power there.

The recent threat to use the Insurrection Act is but one more attempt by Trump to circumvent the rule of law, silence dissent against his destructive policies, and further his lawless immigration agenda.

What does the Insurrection Act not do?

Despite Trump’s threat to invoke the act in response to protests, presidents may not, consistent with First Amendment principles, use the military to quell or deter lawful political protests.

Invocation of the Insurrection Act cannot and does not suspend constitutional protections. Far from it. The conduct of any troops deployed under the Insurrection Act is governed by the safeguards of our Constitution.

No matter what uniform they wear, military troops and armed federal agents must respect our constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, and due process. If troops or federal agents violate these constraints, they and their leadership must be held accountable.

What will happen if President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act?

Much remains uncertain, but this much is clear: The most dangerous consequence of President Trump invoking the Insurrection Act is the harm it would cause for individual civil rights and liberties. To help protect ourselves and each other we need to know our rights.

President Trump would also be placing troops in legal and ethical jeopardy, and further politicizing the military in furtherance of his partisan agenda. And he would undermine the constitutional design, which prevents direct military involvement in civilian life, except in the most limited genuine crises. Images of troops patrolling city streets are more often seen under authoritarian regimes, not in our democracy.

So "what's needed now is not federal escalation, but deescalation,” said Shamsi. “Congress must demand these mass federal law enforcement forces leave Minneapolis and rein in ICE and [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] until the administration backs down.”

Published January 17, 2026 at 12:52AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/IRruzYO