Written by The Insurrection Act of 1807 is one of the most powerful and controversial tools available to a U.S. President. In short, it is the law that allows the President to bypass standard legal restrictions and use the military as a domestic police force within the United States.
Normally, the military is prohibited from enforcing domestic laws under a principle known as posse comitatus. This rule ensures that the military stays focused on foreign threats while local police handle domestic issues. The Insurrection Act serves as the emergency brake, allowing the Commander-in-Chief to step in when local authorities lose control or federal laws are being obstructed.
Current Crisis: Minnesota and the 2026 Standoff
As of mid-January 2026, the Act is at the center of a major legal and political battle. President Trump has threatened to invoke it to address widespread protests in Minnesota. These demonstrations began after federal immigration agents (ICE) conducted a massive enforcement operation known as Operation Metro Surge, which led to the fatal shooting of a local resident, Renee Good, on January 7.
The President has labeled the protesters professional agitators and insurrectionists, claiming they are obstructing federal agents from doing their jobs. He has warned that if local officials do not stop the unrest, he will deploy active-duty troops to the Twin Cities.
In response, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, filed a federal lawsuit on January 12 to halt the surge of federal agents. Ellison has called the deployment a federal invasion and a violation of the Constitution. While the state requested an immediate temporary restraining order to stop the federal activity, a federal judge ruled on January 14 that no immediate order would be issued.
Instead, the court set a fast-track schedule for legal arguments, with the next major deadlines falling between January 19 and January 22, 2026.
How the Act Works
The law is designed to be a last resort. Before a single soldier is deployed, the President must follow a specific legal process:
1. The Proclamation
The President must first issue a formal Proclamation to Disperse. This is a public announcement telling the people involved in the unrest to go home by a specific time.
2. Deployment
If the proclamation is ignored, the President can then order the military to restore order.
While the military is deployed under this Act, they have the authority to make arrests and perform tasks typically handled by police officers. This is a temporary measure intended to bring a chaotic situation back to a point where the normal government can function again.
When Can It Be Legally Used?
There are three main triggers for the Act:
1. A State Request
If a governor or state legislature realizes they cannot handle a situation—like a massive riot or a natural disaster—they can formally request federal military assistance.
2. Obstruction of Federal Law
If the President determines that unlawful obstructions or rebellion make it impossible to enforce federal laws through the normal court system, troops may be deployed.
3. Protection of Civil Rights
If a state is unable or unwilling to protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens, the President can intervene even without the state’s permission.
Choosing the Force: National Guard vs. Active-Duty
When the President invokes the Act, they choose between federalized National Guard units or active-duty military.
- National Guard: Normally reports to the governor, but under the Act, the President federalizes them. Because Guard members often live in the states where they serve, they are generally seen as a less aggressive option.
- Active-Duty Military: Full-time combat soldiers such as the Army or Marines. Deploying them onto American streets is considered a major escalation and is typically reserved for situations where the National Guard is overwhelmed.
Is this Necessary?
The question of whether the Insurrection Act is “necessary” in Minnesota is currently being debated across three fronts: executive authority, state sovereignty, and judicial review. Below is a legal assessment of the arguments for and against its use in this specific situation.
The Case for Deployment (The Executive View)
The President’s legal team argues that the situation meets the criteria under 10 U.S.C. § 252, which allows for deployment when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law.
- Obstruction of Federal Functions: The administration points to the Jan. 15 incidents where federal vehicles were vandalized and ICE agents were allegedly surrounded by “hostile” crowds.
- Failure of Local Oversight: The President has suggested that local leadership is not just failing to restore order but is actively obstructing federal agents. The DOJ’s subpoenas of Governor Walz and Mayor Frey regarding “obstruction” serve as the legal foundation for this claim.
- Precedent: From the administration’s perspective, if federal agents cannot safely carry out a court-authorized operation (Operation Metro Surge), the “emergency brake” of the Insurrection Act is the only remaining tool.
The Case Against Deployment (The State and Civil View)
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and civil rights groups argue that the federal government is actually the source of the disorder, making the Act’s invocation legally self-serving and circular.
- Manufacturing the Crisis: Critics argue that the unrest was caused by federal overreach—specifically the fatal shooting of Renee Good and the “invasion” of 2,000 masked agents without local coordination. They contend that a crisis created by federal agents cannot be used as a legal justification to further militarize the state.
- The Tenth Amendment: The state’s lawsuit argues that the unilateral deployment of federal forces for general policing violates the principle of “dual sovereignty,” where states maintain primary “police power” within their borders.
- Violation of Rights: The ACLU class-action lawsuit filed on Jan. 15 alleges that federal agents are already violating Fourth Amendment rights through “suspicionless stops” and “racial profiling.” They argue that adding active-duty military would lead to further irreparable constitutional harm.
The Judicial Middle Ground
The federal court’s refusal to grant a Temporary Restraining Order on January 14 suggests that the judiciary is hesitant to interfere with executive enforcement powers prematurely. However, the “fast-track” hearing set for January 19–22, 2026, indicates that the court will strictly scrutinize whether the President’s “Proclamation to Disperse” is based on actual obstruction or a political dispute.
Legal Summary: While the President has broad discretion to determine what constitutes an “insurrection,” the Supreme Court has historically suggested that this power is not a “blank check.” If the court finds that federal laws could still be enforced through the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the use of the military may be ruled unwarranted.
Notable Moments in History
The Insurrection Act has been used roughly 30 times in U.S. history, including:
- The Civil War (1861): Abraham Lincoln used the Act to raise an army to suppress the rebellion of the Southern states.
- The KKK Act (1871): Ulysses S. Grant sent troops into South Carolina to dismantle the Ku Klux Klan and protect Black voters.
- School Integration (1957): Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students after the governor used the National Guard to block them.
- Civil Rights Marches (1965): Lyndon B. Johnson used the Act to protect marchers traveling from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.
- L.A. Riots (1992): George H.W. Bush deployed troops after a request from California’s governor. This was the last official invocation of the Act.
Summary: Support vs. Control
It is important to distinguish the Insurrection Act from Martial Law.
- Under the Insurrection Act, the military supports civilian government and helps restore order.
- Under Martial Law, the military replaces civilian government entirely, suspending civil liberties and courts.
The Insurrection Act is meant to be a bridge back to the rule of law—not a replacement for it.
Works Cited (Click Here)
10 USC Ch. 13: INSURRECTION (Current)
The primary legal text defining the triggers for presidential intervention.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim
Judge sets deadlines in Minnesota’s lawsuit against ICE, no immediate restraining order (Jan 14, 2026)
Details on the court’s refusal to immediately block federal agents and the timeline for upcoming hearings.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-minnesota/judge-denies-states-restraining-order-request-against-ice/89-acf5abc2-68e0-4503-a87e-49716965e958
Trump threatens Insurrection Act as Minnesota protests grow (Jan 16, 2026)
Updates on the administration’s stance on the Minneapolis unrest.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/01/16/world/trump-minnesota-insurrection-act/
Guide to Invocations of the Insurrection Act (April 25, 2022)
A comprehensive historical timeline of past uses of the Act.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-invocations-insurrection-act
Attorney General Ellison and cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul sue to halt ICE surge (Jan 12, 2026)
The official press release detailing the legal arguments used by the state.
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/01/12_ICE.asp