Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
Legislative attorney at CRS. NatSec, IHL, international law, etc. Army Intelligence officer in previous life. Opinions mine. No skeets from this account are attributable to CRS.
Pinned
Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
· Jun 20
Apparently the 9th Circuit interprets the 10 USC § 12406 requirement that “regular forces” are unable to execute the law means federal officers. Legislative history makes clear that regular forces means the regular armed forces as opposed to the militia.
More on Venezuela from a fabulous colleague
www.congress.gov
December 17, 2025 at 1:51 AM
More on Venezuela from a fabulous colleague
A history of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, should anyone want one.
www.congress.gov
December 17, 2025 at 1:44 AM
A history of U.S. sanctions against Venezuela, should anyone want one.
New filing in Illinois case challenging the National Guard deployment. Prof. Lederman located the full JAG op. from 1917 interpreting the requirement the President be “unable with the regular forces to execute the law.” (I had also been looking for this opinion from the digested ops. Thanks, Marty!)
Supplements/corrections in the National Guard in Chicago case:
In my amicus briefs in Trump v. Illinois, on the Applications Docket (No. 25A443), I cited a 1917 memo by esteemed Army JAG Enoch Crowder that appeared to confirm that the statutory term "the regular forces" refers to the Army. [1]
In my amicus briefs in Trump v. Illinois, on the Applications Docket (No. 25A443), I cited a 1917 memo by esteemed Army JAG Enoch Crowder that appeared to confirm that the statutory term "the regular forces" refers to the Army. [1]
December 15, 2025 at 9:21 PM
New filing in Illinois case challenging the National Guard deployment. Prof. Lederman located the full JAG op. from 1917 interpreting the requirement the President be “unable with the regular forces to execute the law.” (I had also been looking for this opinion from the digested ops. Thanks, Marty!)
Saddest trombone sound ever
Wordle 1,639 X/6
⬜⬜🟩🟨🟨
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟨🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 1,639 X/6
⬜⬜🟩🟨🟨
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟨🟩🟩🟩
December 14, 2025 at 10:47 AM
Saddest trombone sound ever
Wordle 1,639 X/6
⬜⬜🟩🟨🟨
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟨🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 1,639 X/6
⬜⬜🟩🟨🟨
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟨🟩🟩🟩
Oh
NBC explains legal nuance between order to kill everyone on a boat versus order to kill everyone on a list.
![Hegseth gave him a no quarter order, which 1s an illegal military directive to kill all enemy combatants and show no mercy, even if they surrender or are gravely injured, one of the U.S. officials and a second person with knowledge of the briefing said. They said Bradley replied that he was not given such an order and would not have followed one if it had been given. The White House and Hegseth have said no illegal orders were given.
[emphasis follows]
Unlike a "no quarter order," an order to kill everyone on a target list is not forbidden under
U.S. and international law.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zisioommrblib4fuk2chtrmm/bafkreiadz6j3ujpbtfsbbik5xqdhbmw7hoobntqcbvtgutcfwq3viiajwu@jpeg)
December 7, 2025 at 11:01 AM
Oh
Reposted by Jennifer Elsea
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared this "Legal Sidebar" with sources and content of the law of war, AKA the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law as it pertains to war crimes occurring in international armed conflicts.
CRS is nonpartisan and widely respected.
CRS is nonpartisan and widely respected.
In case anyone is interested in a primer on war crimes…and no, this is not a how-to
www.congress.gov
November 30, 2025 at 6:41 PM
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared this "Legal Sidebar" with sources and content of the law of war, AKA the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law as it pertains to war crimes occurring in international armed conflicts.
CRS is nonpartisan and widely respected.
CRS is nonpartisan and widely respected.
In case anyone is interested in a primer on war crimes…and no, this is not a how-to
www.congress.gov
November 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM
In case anyone is interested in a primer on war crimes…and no, this is not a how-to
Are they going to argue the requirement for a “declared war” has evolved since enactment of the AEA so it now means the president can just declare there is one? 🤔
Creating a military conflict with Venezuela gives this administration a legal "hook" to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. In other words, the foreign war is being manufactured in order to facilitate court deference for its domestic mass deportation policy. It's a Stephen Miller Special.
November 29, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Are they going to argue the requirement for a “declared war” has evolved since enactment of the AEA so it now means the president can just declare there is one? 🤔
Dear Santa,
I was, no doubt, referring to the 1903 Dick Act. Whatever I asked to be damned surely deserved it. Also, I was just calling balls and strikes.
I was, no doubt, referring to the 1903 Dick Act. Whatever I asked to be damned surely deserved it. Also, I was just calling balls and strikes.
@jnklz.bsky.social has swears! They've used 33 profanities in their last 1,266 posts.
🥇 "dick" (17 times)
🥈 "damn" (4 times)
🥉 "balls" (3 times)
🥇 "dick" (17 times)
🥈 "damn" (4 times)
🥉 "balls" (3 times)
November 29, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Dear Santa,
I was, no doubt, referring to the 1903 Dick Act. Whatever I asked to be damned surely deserved it. Also, I was just calling balls and strikes.
I was, no doubt, referring to the 1903 Dick Act. Whatever I asked to be damned surely deserved it. Also, I was just calling balls and strikes.
Quick, @profanity.accountant, I need something to show Santa to prove how nice I’ve been.
November 29, 2025 at 5:44 PM
Quick, @profanity.accountant, I need something to show Santa to prove how nice I’ve been.
What! No one else says this?
November 21, 2025 at 8:56 PM
What! No one else says this?
The decision finding the DC NG deployment likely unlawful, if it holds, appears to put meaningful restrictions on the use of the Guard in Title 32 status performing “other duties” as part of a federal mission or operation. Opinion is here ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show...
ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov
November 21, 2025 at 4:05 PM
The decision finding the DC NG deployment likely unlawful, if it holds, appears to put meaningful restrictions on the use of the Guard in Title 32 status performing “other duties” as part of a federal mission or operation. Opinion is here ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show...
Some thoughts on Illinois’ brief in the NG case, in which SCOTUS asked for briefing on the term “regular forces” in 10 USC §12406. Illinois has come to the view that regular forces are the standing military and not, as the gov’t argues, whatever civilian feds regularly execute the law. 1/
www.supremecourt.gov
November 19, 2025 at 11:03 AM
Some thoughts on Illinois’ brief in the NG case, in which SCOTUS asked for briefing on the term “regular forces” in 10 USC §12406. Illinois has come to the view that regular forces are the standing military and not, as the gov’t argues, whatever civilian feds regularly execute the law. 1/
Some thoughts on the gov’t brief in the Illinois National Guard case: the reply emphasizes the requirement “unable with the regular forces” applies only to executing the laws, and not to repelling invasions or suppressing rebellions. The reply argues it makes no sense unless regular forces means 1/
November 18, 2025 at 4:22 AM
Some thoughts on the gov’t brief in the Illinois National Guard case: the reply emphasizes the requirement “unable with the regular forces” applies only to executing the laws, and not to repelling invasions or suppressing rebellions. The reply argues it makes no sense unless regular forces means 1/
Gov’t brief in Illinois NG case explains why “regular forces” in the context of §12406 is not a reference to standard military usage of a term of art, but instead means whoever regularly executes the law. One might object that the term could have been omitted without changing the meaning, but—>
November 11, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Gov’t brief in Illinois NG case explains why “regular forces” in the context of §12406 is not a reference to standard military usage of a term of art, but instead means whoever regularly executes the law. One might object that the term could have been omitted without changing the meaning, but—>
In its brief filed in the Oregon case challenging deployment of the Guard, the government argues that Nixon’s use of the precursor to 10 USC §12406 to task the NG with postal operations “without even referencing the standing military.” This seems to assume Nixon’s EO reference to “regular forces”—>
November 4, 2025 at 4:58 AM
In its brief filed in the Oregon case challenging deployment of the Guard, the government argues that Nixon’s use of the precursor to 10 USC §12406 to task the NG with postal operations “without even referencing the standing military.” This seems to assume Nixon’s EO reference to “regular forces”—>
I think it’s misreading the SCOTUS 14th Amendment §3 case to suggest Congress can just vote to disqualify a specific mayoral candidate. Rather, it seems to say Congress would have to enact a statute prescribing procedures for determining who is disqualified for aiding enemies of the Constitution.
Hey guys the Nazi group chat people think they can block Zohran from becoming mayor
November 2, 2025 at 10:08 PM
I think it’s misreading the SCOTUS 14th Amendment §3 case to suggest Congress can just vote to disqualify a specific mayoral candidate. Rather, it seems to say Congress would have to enact a statute prescribing procedures for determining who is disqualified for aiding enemies of the Constitution.
OMG
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
Supreme Court seems unsure how to proceed in case about whether Trump can deploy National Guard in Illinois. Asks for additional briefing:
October 29, 2025 at 7:58 PM
OMG
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
SCOTUS interested in the meaning of “regular forces”!
Wait a damn minute. I have it on good authority this is a word.
October 25, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Wait a damn minute. I have it on good authority this is a word.
Fun Fact: Definition of rebellion in 10 USC § 12406 for deploying NG. The term rebellion in the Dick Act was a holdover from R.S. § 1642 (which § 4 replaced). Which originated from § 1 of the Act of 1795, which did not mention rebellion. The term appeared when the R.S. were enacted in 1864 —>
October 23, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Fun Fact: Definition of rebellion in 10 USC § 12406 for deploying NG. The term rebellion in the Dick Act was a holdover from R.S. § 1642 (which § 4 replaced). Which originated from § 1 of the Act of 1795, which did not mention rebellion. The term appeared when the R.S. were enacted in 1864 —>
Amicus alert re “regular forces” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and National Guard deployments!
@jnklz.bsky.social @stevevladeck.bsky.social
@martylederman.bsky.social as amicus raises the argument that @jnklz.bsky.social has been posting about. Since no party raised the "regular forces" argument below, can it resonate with the SCOTUS?
@martylederman.bsky.social as amicus raises the argument that @jnklz.bsky.social has been posting about. Since no party raised the "regular forces" argument below, can it resonate with the SCOTUS?
@lizagoitein.bsky.social will Brennan Center be filing an amicus in 25A443 that makes the argument that @jnklz.bsky.social has set forth? So far, from what I can tell, no discussion of the meaning of "regular forces" in any brief filed w/SCOTUS.
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
October 22, 2025 at 3:00 PM
Amicus alert re “regular forces” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and National Guard deployments!
Is it possible to turn off AI assistance for searches and just get sites that, y’know, contain the search terms you enter, without commenting that you must be a total idiot for entering them? I long for Back Then.
October 22, 2025 at 2:38 AM
Is it possible to turn off AI assistance for searches and just get sites that, y’know, contain the search terms you enter, without commenting that you must be a total idiot for entering them? I long for Back Then.
Good time to remember the October 21, 1967 March on the Pentagon, organized by the Mobe to protest the war. NYT published an oral history on the 50th anniversary (doesn’t appear that the Mobe paid participants tho). www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Opinion | The March on the Pentagon: An Oral History (Published 2017)
Fifty years ago, tens of thousands of people gathered in Washington to protest the Vietnam War. Here are some of their stories.
www.nytimes.com
October 13, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Good time to remember the October 21, 1967 March on the Pentagon, organized by the Mobe to protest the war. NYT published an oral history on the 50th anniversary (doesn’t appear that the Mobe paid participants tho). www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Fun fact: Insurrection Act. The Act of Feb. 28, 1795 was the first permanent provision permitting the president to call forth the militia. By 1873, when all statutes in force were codified into the Revised Statutes, section one was split up:
October 12, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Fun fact: Insurrection Act. The Act of Feb. 28, 1795 was the first permanent provision permitting the president to call forth the militia. By 1873, when all statutes in force were codified into the Revised Statutes, section one was split up:
Fun fact: Insurrection Edition.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
October 9, 2025 at 2:08 PM
Fun fact: Insurrection Edition.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.
After Hurricane Katrina, when the La governor refused to request invocation of the Insurrection Act in NOLA, Congress amended the IA to permit the president to override the governor in such situations.