Armed forces are rarely used to deal with volatile situations that are generally under scrutiny by law enforcement within the United States, and for good reason. Soldiers are legally prohibited from engaging in domestic law enforcement cases without prior conference permission.
There is one gap. It is the Insurrection Act, and it empowers the president to deploy troops to counter an attack, civil unrest, natural disaster, or terrorist attack on American soil. But attacking the Reconstruction Act is not just a simple matter.
The Act was introduced in 1807 and authorizes the president to direct American troops to intervene in civil unrest at the state level if local authorities are unable to control it. temptation. (Modified in 2006 after Hurricane Katrina to include disasters and terrorism.) It is being used abruptly, especially as today’s police forces have become more armed. It was in 1992 that the Act was enacted, when riots erupted after the release of four police officers tried in a Rodney King attack in Los Angeles.
At the time, the governor of California called for armed forces – and as usual, the president deployed federal troops at the behest of a governor or state legislature. According to the Los Angeles Times, one exception for deploying troops without state permission is a sign that states are violating civil rights, as were several U.S. presidents (Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson) used military forces to repel secession in the southern United States. On the other hand, the president had to believe that such events hinder the ability of the state to enforce their laws.
Simply put: Armed forces are usually deployed at the request of the state, but a request is not necessary if the president believes soldiers are needed to restore order.
When states believe that the local police are gaining the upper hand, they prefer to use the National Guard, which has the authority to enforce law on domestic land.
If the Act is used, the president would first have to issue a call directing those involved in any concerns to be dispelled. Failing that, the president would issue an order of action to enforce the weapons. It is likely that states would then argue against the harassment of these forces. It is not clear, however, that they would have the legal justification to prevent such an action if the president so requests.
[h/t Los Angeles Times]