Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases.
Thank you for providing excellent detail on this. This was one that I had completely missed and is so important.
The amicus brief does a great job of explaining why it's so dangerous to assign military lawyers to act in a civilian capacity. Some of your readers (not naming names, note) may find it too complex to fully understand, though.
Thankfully, you bolded the bits that might help them. Poor dears.
Leave it to the professionals, purveyors of illegality par excellence, under the lawless DOJ of Todd Blanche, (with brash PR malfeasance helpfully provided by his secretary, Pam Bondi), to devise a multi-layered method of abusing military lawyers, (who are actually very badly needed in their proper role), to pursue utterly illegal — even lawless — programs, in pursuit of cruel persecution of vulnerable persons unfortunate enough to have sought safety on American soil.
It all appears patently illegal, as lower courts likely will find. But who knows what fresh “doctrine”the “big brains” of SCOTUS may devise to extend, hide, or endorse this latest illegal maneuver of the current criminal president and his lawless regime of official incompetents?
I think the brief does a great job explaining why using the JAGs in this way is a bad idea, but I am skeptical it can overcome the text of UCMJ art. 6, which permits JAGs assigned to other agencies to perform “such duties as may be requested by the agency concerned, including representation of the United States in civil and criminal cases.” It doesn’t require a military nexus or approval from the service. Courts have not required PCA exceptions to expressly mention the PCA or use magic words. So unless the Army regs are controlling—and it’s not clear to me that the regs even bar JAG officers from being employed in litigation with no Army connection—I remain unconvinced. Happy to be proved wrong, though.
You're missing the opening of that, which is discussing "such duties" within the confines of permitted assignments or details under section 973(b)(2)(B) — which is addressed in the brief at length.
This whole “constitutional crisis” over JAG lawyers is a complete nothing burger. Bureaucratic drama for people who enjoy crying on Substack. If someone thinks there’s even a technical Posse Comitatus issue, the fix is laughably simple: put the officer on paid administrative leave, count the time as service credit, and swap the name on the filing. Problem solved. No tanks in the streets, no military dictatorship—just paperwork. Washington has real problems: border chaos, terror states, election integrity, and war abroad. But somehow we’re supposed to panic because a military lawyer helped process national security-related cases in Minnesota? Spare me. What are they going to cry about next?
The fact that your response to everything is "This isn't a thing because I think something else is actually the thing that matters" is growing rather tiresome. Carry on as you wish, but your point has been made.
Wait--there's chaos at the border? So I guess Trump was lying when he recently said illegal border crossings are at their lowest level since the 1970s?
Hakes-Rodriguez may well be "supervised in the work related to his detail entirely by civilian supervisors within the District of Minnesota United States Attorney’s Office," but he surely must expect to return to his unit at some point. The spectre of unlawful command influence can't be waved away like smoke while cooking. There need not be a single act on which to hang the label of unlawful command influence; it can be sufficient if there is a command climate or atmosphere created by the action of the unit commander. Given that Hakes-Rodriguez is barely out of law school, he may be especially sensitive to command influence that more seasoned attorneys (and JAG lawyers) would brush off.
JAG lawyers brought in on civil cases? National Guard brought in to meander blue cities? U.S. Army brought in to gaze thoughtfully at the southern border? King Donald the Only: “This military is MINE!” Martial law next?
Thank you for providing excellent detail on this. This was one that I had completely missed and is so important.
The amicus brief does a great job of explaining why it's so dangerous to assign military lawyers to act in a civilian capacity. Some of your readers (not naming names, note) may find it too complex to fully understand, though.
Thankfully, you bolded the bits that might help them. Poor dears.
Leave it to the professionals, purveyors of illegality par excellence, under the lawless DOJ of Todd Blanche, (with brash PR malfeasance helpfully provided by his secretary, Pam Bondi), to devise a multi-layered method of abusing military lawyers, (who are actually very badly needed in their proper role), to pursue utterly illegal — even lawless — programs, in pursuit of cruel persecution of vulnerable persons unfortunate enough to have sought safety on American soil.
It all appears patently illegal, as lower courts likely will find. But who knows what fresh “doctrine”the “big brains” of SCOTUS may devise to extend, hide, or endorse this latest illegal maneuver of the current criminal president and his lawless regime of official incompetents?
I think the brief does a great job explaining why using the JAGs in this way is a bad idea, but I am skeptical it can overcome the text of UCMJ art. 6, which permits JAGs assigned to other agencies to perform “such duties as may be requested by the agency concerned, including representation of the United States in civil and criminal cases.” It doesn’t require a military nexus or approval from the service. Courts have not required PCA exceptions to expressly mention the PCA or use magic words. So unless the Army regs are controlling—and it’s not clear to me that the regs even bar JAG officers from being employed in litigation with no Army connection—I remain unconvinced. Happy to be proved wrong, though.
You're missing the opening of that, which is discussing "such duties" within the confines of permitted assignments or details under section 973(b)(2)(B) — which is addressed in the brief at length.
Sometimes “the law” seems practically meaningless, (layman speaking here, not a lawyer).
I so appreciate your work. Thank you for this thorough, detailed piece.
This whole “constitutional crisis” over JAG lawyers is a complete nothing burger. Bureaucratic drama for people who enjoy crying on Substack. If someone thinks there’s even a technical Posse Comitatus issue, the fix is laughably simple: put the officer on paid administrative leave, count the time as service credit, and swap the name on the filing. Problem solved. No tanks in the streets, no military dictatorship—just paperwork. Washington has real problems: border chaos, terror states, election integrity, and war abroad. But somehow we’re supposed to panic because a military lawyer helped process national security-related cases in Minnesota? Spare me. What are they going to cry about next?
The fact that your response to everything is "This isn't a thing because I think something else is actually the thing that matters" is growing rather tiresome. Carry on as you wish, but your point has been made.
Wait--there's chaos at the border? So I guess Trump was lying when he recently said illegal border crossings are at their lowest level since the 1970s?
Silly laws! Just get around them—no probs.
Be careful. You’re about to put every tax and estate planning lawyer out of a job.
Hakes-Rodriguez may well be "supervised in the work related to his detail entirely by civilian supervisors within the District of Minnesota United States Attorney’s Office," but he surely must expect to return to his unit at some point. The spectre of unlawful command influence can't be waved away like smoke while cooking. There need not be a single act on which to hang the label of unlawful command influence; it can be sufficient if there is a command climate or atmosphere created by the action of the unit commander. Given that Hakes-Rodriguez is barely out of law school, he may be especially sensitive to command influence that more seasoned attorneys (and JAG lawyers) would brush off.
JAG lawyers brought in on civil cases? National Guard brought in to meander blue cities? U.S. Army brought in to gaze thoughtfully at the southern border? King Donald the Only: “This military is MINE!” Martial law next?
Laws, propriety, civility, morality—is there anything this crass and craven man hasn’t violated?