Does the president have authority to deploy ICE in States where the governor opposes the deployment?

Several state courts have rules against Trump sending federal troops to states without the request of its governors. Trump has threatened to invoke the insurrection act to get pass the courts.

Any State and it's State Justices who think they can prevent the president from invoking federal law that has already been accepted by the Supreme Court as constitutional will find their "authority" to act against the president by claiming authority to stop a federal agency [the military or federal law enforcement] by the president by invocation of the Insurrection Act has constitutional imprimatur since the Constitution is

Supreme law. The Constitution says so; Article VI, clauses 2 - the supremacy clause. No State law has legit authority over the Constitution.

But the insurrection act will not be legal if there is no insurrection to justify passing it by the President. Just like Trump’s war emergency act used to pass tariffs on countries is under consideration by the Supreme Court where the lower courts have ruled it illegal.

Did you read the text of the FACE Act I posted? Doesn't say there must be "insurection" [ 18 U.S.C. § 2383 ]. Just says the president must invoke the FACE Act. And what tariffs have to do with that is beyond me. Stay on point.

The FACE Act is to protect protesters rights. It was passed to protect the rights of people to access abortion clinics.

No, the FACE Act makes a clear distinction that those who oppose use of any clinic [not just abortion] that they cannot impede people who use them, and to prevent those who would attempt to prevent people from assembly at a religious service but disrupting that service. didn't read the statute, 18 U.S. Code § 248, did you?

The Chicago deployment is on hold since a U.S. district judge there held that it wasn’t called for because the situation on the ground didn’t meet either of those thresholds.

The Los Angeles and Portland issues similar orders blocking deployment after determining that protests did not rise to the level of a rebellion and that local law enforcement officials currently were capable of enforcing the law. The deployment is on hold until the appeal is reheard.

Debby is a literal non-sequitur engine.

And let's be honest here, SCOTUS is basically saying an ICE agent has to literally die before a President can have the justification to send armed federal forces in to protect Federal assets. Just getting sent to the hospital and destruction of property from anti-federal vigilantes is not a sufficient bar to hurdle before a president can send troops in to protect federal assets like ICE and ICE property.

So the incentive structure is perverse. The federal government is effectively told: wait until harm is catastrophic, not imminent. Reactive authority is tolerated while proactive protection is treated as suspect. That’s not how security works in the real world because it rewards escalation with the wrong incentives.

Right about now is when you tell us about how you aren't a Trumper LOL.

The state law enforcement can handle state crimes and does not need the president to intervene without being requested by the Governor of the state. Local law enforcement is a state issue.

Even if president has authority, it doesnt mean he should.

the people are already angry enough. Why make people angrier?

Congress has significant constitutional control over the president through checks and balances, including the power to override vetos with two-thirds vote , confirm or reject executive nominees, and hold the power of the purse to fund or restrict programs.

Congress also conducts oversight hearings, can declare war, and possess the power to remove a president through impeachment.

Honestly, Trump should just do the Governor Hotwheels plan and just pay for buses to send everyone who wants to go to Minnesota.

That way, everyone is happy.

Why should he follow your political ideas when you are not even a MAGA supporter.

Right about now is when

I tell you your avatar sends a message that while you're a deer in the headlights running for your life, you make the attempt to scare yourself and everyone else by a shadow.

Not working.

 Why make people angrier?

Because people are easily led by the terror in their own shadows - kind of like Sidewalker's new avatar

You read a lot from his avatar. His profile lists many unknowns.

His profile lists many unknowns.

Thus, afraid of a shadow.

@Shoresy

"Honestly, Trump should just do the Governor Hotwheels plan and just pay for buses to send everyone who wants to go to Minnesota.

That way, everyone is happy."

Shoresy #15

I think a plan like that only works if states create a secondary entry process and enforce borders against other states.

One worry of mass migration is that the people will not adjust their values to the new country, and they 'will have kids eventually.

Then those kids will legally move to the state that bussed out their parents.

Just takes longer.

Heh, funnily borders is one of those issues that only works well if everyone is doing it, maybe.

@fauxlaw

My 'guess is that Trump can deploy ICE to the states he wants, but it's a guess on my part.

The states kind of 'lost the War for States Rights, Civil War,

Then later lost again during Segregation.

I vaguely recall reading of State Troops being sent, that black Americans could attend school.

. . . Course, states 'currently still have a lot of different laws between states.

. . . (Shrug) I'm not well read on the subject.

I imagine people would claim there are differences between Federal and State responsibilities, but that line maybe's a bit blurry.

...but that line maybe's a bit blurry.

Yes, it is, and that is primarily due to

1. Congress having an inflated bag of personal pride relative to investigating rather than legislating, and coloring only with their own lines.
2. States doing much the two same things, but at odds with both Congress and the President.

How did the system get so screwed up? Nothing works anymore. That is why we have so many executive orders.

Heh, funnily borders is one of those issues that only works well if everyone is doing it, maybe.

Your Hollyweird had awards, and your celebrities screamed the mindless chant, "nobody is illegal on stolen land." while shaking their self-awarded trophies.

And now people from all over are claiming intent to file lawsuits to evict those celebrities from their mansions on "stolen land."

Canada already has precedent for this foolishness.

The court case, Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia ruled in the native's favor. Provinces, municipalities, and private companies now pay real, ongoing compensation to Indigenous nations through taxes, royalties, revenue-sharing agreements, and mandatory benefit payments tied to land use. These aren’t symbolic acknowledgments; they are cash obligations baked into permits, leases, and approvals. Ownership technically remains, but economic sovereignty is split, and land use now triggers payments to ancestral title holders. It's not just idle words or claims.

Congress decided it had to be a more-than-equal branch, and the judicial became radicalized

That must be the Republicans because they hold the majority.

"Even if president has authority, it doesnt mean he should.

the people are already angry enough. Why make people angrier?"

Soo are you saying if the law is enforced and it makes people angry because it is being enforced, law enforcement should no longer enforce the law? If so what is the point of having any laws if all you have to do is throw a collective temper tantrum and the law will no longer be enforced.

so what is the point of having any laws

The only point of laws is to enforce someone's will.

And of course, if will of majority isn't being enforced, what will is being enforced?

Hopefully will of a benevolent minority, but we all know Trump isn't really benevolent.

So yes, laws which are immoral and make most people angry, enforcing those laws just means republicans lose elections in November, and with that, their majority in Congress.

Trump is anticipating losing his majority in the mid election and being impeached again.

Nope, the slide into the present condition began when Democrats had the What House, the House and the Senate during all 4 years of his term, 77- 81: Jimmy Carpetbagger