📜 The Role, Authority, and Constitutional Limits of the President of the United States
Understanding executive power, constitutional boundaries, and when federal force can be deployed on American soil
Engage for Democracy | Explainer | June 13, 2025
✏️ Editor's Note:
The convergence of immigration enforcement, peaceful protest, and federal military deployment in Los Angeles this week has brought urgent questions about presidential authority to the forefront. When can a President deploy military forces within U.S. borders? What are the constitutional limits on executive power? And how do we evaluate whether federal actions cross from lawful authority into constitutional overreach?
This explainer breaks down the President's constitutional powers, the legal boundaries that constrain them, and how these principles apply to recent events in Los Angeles. Understanding these limits is essential to preserving the balance of power that protects our democracy.
This is the third in a three-part explainer series on constitutional authority and limits. Our next edition will focus on civic actions we can take in response to the constitutional crossroads we face.
🔗 Previous explainers:
The Role of ICE and the Limits of Civil Enforcement Authority
The Right to Peaceful Protest and First Amendment Protections
📜 Constitutional Foundations: Presidential Power and Its Limits
🎯 Key Takeaway: Substantial Authority and Strong Constitutional Boundaries
The Constitution grants the President substantial powers to execute laws and protect national security—but these powers are neither absolute nor unchecked. The framers deliberately designed a system where executive authority operates within constitutional boundaries, subject to judicial review and legislative oversight.
The U.S. Constitution establishes the President as the head of the Executive Branch, but with carefully defined responsibilities and clear limits. Article II outlines both what the President must do and what powers the office holds—while the broader constitutional structure ensures no single branch becomes too powerful.
Presidential Responsibilities (What the Constitution Requires) [8]
Take Care Clause: Must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, § 3)[10]
Oath of Office: Must swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" (Art. II, § 1)[11]
Commander in Chief: Leads the armed forces (Art. II, § 2)[12]
State of the Union & Legislative Recommendations: Reports to Congress and proposes national priorities (Art. II, § 3)
Receives Ambassadors: Conducts foreign diplomacy (Art. II, § 3)
✅ What the President Can Do
Execute laws passed by Congress (Art. II, § 3)
Serve as Commander in Chief of armed forces (Art. II, § 2, cl. 1)
Negotiate treaties (with Senate ratification) (Art. II, § 2, cl. 2)
Appoint federal officials (with Senate confirmation) (Art. II, § 2, cl. 2)
Grant pardons for federal crimes (Art. II, § 2, cl. 1)
Veto or sign legislation (Art. I, § 7)
Deploy military forces under specific statutory authority
❌ What the President Cannot Do
Make laws (Art. I, § 1) – that is Congress's exclusive role
Ignore court rulings – judicial decisions are binding (Art. III)
Spend money not appropriated by Congress (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7)
Exercise powers not delegated by law – the President must be authorized by statute or Constitution
Declare war unilaterally – that power lies with Congress (Art. I, § 8)
Violate constitutional rights – all executive actions are subject to Bill of Rights and judicial review
Deploy military for domestic law enforcement without specific congressional authorization
⚖️ Landmark Cases That Define Executive Limits
📚 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)
During the Korean War, President Truman seized control of steel mills to prevent a labor strike that might disrupt weapons production. Steel companies challenged the seizure as exceeding presidential authority.
The Supreme Court ruled against Truman, holding that the President cannot take actions—even during wartime—without constitutional or statutory authorization. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion established the framework still used today for evaluating presidential power:
Strongest authority: When Congress has authorized the action
Middle ground: When Congress is silent
Weakest authority: When Congress has prohibited or not authorized the action[13]
🧭 Why it matters: This case established that presidential power is at its lowest ebb when acting without or against congressional authorization—even in national emergencies.
📚 United States v. Nixon (1974)
President Nixon claimed executive privilege to withhold White House tapes during the Watergate investigation, arguing that presidential communications were absolutely privileged.
The Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim of absolute executive privilege, ruling that while executive privilege exists, it cannot overcome judicial subpoenas in criminal proceedings.[14]
📰 What This Means in Plain Language
🧭 Why it matters: No person—including the President—is above the law. Executive privilege has limits and cannot be used to obstruct justice or ignore court orders.
From Youngstown: Presidential power isn't unlimited, even during emergencies. The President is strongest when Congress supports his actions, weakest when Congress opposes them, and somewhere in the middle when Congress is silent. The key insight: Even wartime doesn't give presidents unlimited authority.
From Nixon: Presidents cannot claim absolute privilege to hide information or avoid legal processes. While some executive privilege exists, no one—including the President—is above the law.
Together, these cases create the framework for evaluating presidential actions: Does the President have constitutional or congressional authorization? Is he trying to place himself above legal accountability? These questions help us determine whether presidential actions respect constitutional limits or exceed them.
🛡️ Military Deployment on U.S. Soil: Strict Legal Boundaries
🎯 Key Takeaway: Narrow Authority
The President's power to deploy military forces within the United States is severely constrained by law. Such deployments are only permitted under specific circumstances, usually require state consent, and are prohibited from general law enforcement activities.
The Legal Framework
Three key laws govern when and how federal military forces can operate on U.S. soil:
The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385)[15]
The Brennan Center for Justice explains that the that the “Posse Comitatus Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law. This 147-year-old law embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty.” [33] (18 U.S.C. § 1385):
Prohibits using active-duty military for domestic law enforcement
Violations are federal crimes
Exceptions exist only when specifically authorized by Congress
The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255)[16]
The Brennan Center for Justice explains that the Insurrection Act “authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.” [34]
Allows federal troop deployment only in extreme situations
Usually requires state request or clear evidence of insurrection
Has been invoked rarely in modern history
National Guard Federalization (10 U.S.C. § 12406)[17]
Permits federalizing state National Guard in cases of insurrection or obstruction of federal law
States normally retain control of their Guard forces
Federal control should be temporary and mission-specific
Historical Precedent
When military forces have been deployed domestically, it has typically involved:
Clear state requests for assistance (1992 Los Angeles riots, Hurricane Katrina)
Obvious federal jurisdiction (protecting federal buildings, enforcing federal court orders)
Temporary missions with defined objectives
📰 What This Means in Plain Language
The legal framework creates a careful balance: the military generally cannot act as police on American soil. This principle, dating back 147 years, reflects the founders' fear that military power could threaten civilian democracy.
The general rule: Active-duty military cannot enforce laws domestically (Posse Comitatus Act).
The rare exceptions: The President can deploy troops only in extreme situations like actual rebellions or when states request help during emergencies (Insurrection Act).
State vs. Federal control: States normally control their own National Guard, but the President can federalize them in genuine crises - though this should be temporary and specific.
Why this matters: These laws ensure that military force remains a last resort for true emergencies, not a tool for routine law enforcement or political purposes. When presidents deploy military forces domestically without clear justification or state consent, they test the boundaries that protect civilian control over the military.
🚨 Trump v. United States (2024): How Criminal Immunity Affects Presidential Authority
The Supreme Court's July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States did not expand presidential constitutional authority—the President's powers and limits under the Constitution remain unchanged. However, the decision fundamentally altered accountability by granting broad criminal immunity for official presidential conduct.[18]
What the Ruling Did NOT Do:
Did not authorize presidents to exceed constitutional limits
Did not expand the scope of presidential powers
Did not make unconstitutional actions legal or proper
What the Ruling DID Do:
Created absolute immunity for Presidential conduct "within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority"[19]
Established "at least presumptive immunity" for all other official acts[20]
Ruled that immunity applies unless the Government can show "no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch'"[21]
Constitutional Authority vs. Criminal Accountability: Under this ruling, a president who acts outside constitutional bounds faces a crucial distinction:
The action remains unconstitutional and courts can still rule against it
The president faces no criminal prosecution for taking that unconstitutional action[22]
Courts may not inquire into the President's motives when determining if conduct is official[23]
Importantly, immunity applies ONLY to the President. The Court's analysis focuses exclusively on presidential immunity and does not extend similar protections to other executive branch officials.[25]
The New Dynamic Within Government: This creates unprecedented pressure within the executive branch:
President can order potentially unconstitutional actions without personal legal risk
Subordinates must choose between following orders and potential criminal liability[26]
Federal officials implementing unconstitutional directives remain personally accountable under law[27]
Military officers remain bound by their oath to the Constitution, not to illegal orders[29]
By removing criminal prosecution as a check on presidential conduct, the ruling creates conditions where constitutional boundaries may be tested more readily, since the personal legal risks that previously constrained presidential action have been significantly reduced. As Justice Sotomayor warned in dissent: "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."[24]
🛡️ Constitutional Checks That Remain Strong: While criminal accountability has been weakened, other constitutional safeguards continue to operate:
Judicial Review:
Courts can still declare presidential actions unconstitutional
Injunctions can halt unlawful presidential conduct
Constitutional violations can be stopped, even if not criminally prosecuted
Congressional Oversight:
House and Senate retain investigation and oversight powers
Impeachment remains available for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
Legislative branch can constrain presidential actions through funding and legislation
Electoral Accountability:
Voters remain the ultimate check on presidential power
Elections provide regular opportunities to hold presidents accountable
Public opinion and democratic pressure continue to matter
Federalism:
Governors and state officials retain significant power to resist federal overreach
State courts can protect state constitutional rights
Local officials can refuse cooperation with unlawful federal actions
🗳️ Potential Pathways Forward
This ruling represents a serious challenge to constitutional accountability, but it is not the end of democratic governance:
Constitutional Amendment:
Congress can propose amendments to restore criminal accountability
Citizens can pressure representatives to support constitutional reforms
Historical precedent shows that bad Supreme Court decisions can be overturned[31]
Democratic Engagement:
Informed citizens can demand accountability through other channels
Civic education helps voters understand constitutional principles
Public pressure can influence both current and future presidents
A Critical Reminder for Federal Officials
Presidential immunity does not extend to subordinates. Federal officials, from Cabinet secretaries to military commanders, remain personally liable for implementing unconstitutional orders.[28] Military officers take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution," not to obey any individual, and are legally obligated to disobey unlawful orders.[30] The oath of office requires fidelity to the Constitution, not to any individual—including the President.
💪 Why This Matters
While the immunity ruling eliminates one crucial check on presidential power, it does not eliminate all checks. American democracy has weathered constitutional crises before through sustained civic engagement and democratic action. Understanding both the challenges we face and the tools we retain is essential for preserving constitutional government.
The ruling may have removed criminal consequences for presidential misconduct, but it cannot remove the power of an informed citizenry to demand constitutional governance through democratic means.
The Intersection of the State of California and the Executive Branch: What Happened
On June 7, President Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to initially federalize 2,000 members of California's National Guard without Governor Gavin Newsom's consent, subsequently federalizing an additional 2,000 members. Two days later, he ordered approximately 700 U.S. Marines into Los Angeles to reinforce federal property protection efforts.
The mission was justified as necessary to protect federal buildings, but neither Governor Newsom nor Mayor Karen Bass requested these forces—and both objected. California filed a lawsuit challenging the deployment as unconstitutional.[1][2]
Constitutional Problems
Lack of State Consent
Unlike previous urban deployments (1992 riots, Katrina), California explicitly opposed federal military presence. As former DHS Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem noted: "Donald Trump just did what no other president has ever done in the context of urban unrest: He sent federal troops to a state without a request from the governor."[4]
Unclear Mission Parameters
Mayor Bass stated: "I have no idea what the Marines are going to do when they get here."[5] This lack of clarity violates the principle that military deployments must have specific, defined objectives.
Conflating Protest with Insurrection
The administration characterized peaceful protests as "insurrection," but as LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell noted: "When I look at people out there doing the violence, that's not the people that we see during the day who are legitimately out there exercising their first amendment rights."
Extended Timeline Without Justification
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated military forces may remain for 60 days to "send a message"[7]—suggesting political rather than operational objectives.
🏛️ Judicial Response and Ongoing Legal Battle
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer initially ruled that President Trump's federalization of California's National Guard was unlawful, writing:
"The Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants' argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."[32]
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay just two hours later, allowing Trump to retain control while the case proceeds.[9]
Escalating Rhetoric
Beyond the deployment itself, the President's rhetoric has raised constitutional concerns:
Referring to protesters as "paid insurrectionists"
Threatening to arrest Governor Newsom
Warning that demonstrators would be "met with very heavy force"
Such statements risk normalizing political violence and treating constitutionally protected protest as criminal activity.
🚨 The Los Angeles Situation: Constitutional Analysis
The Los Angeles situation represents an unprecedented assertion of federal executive power that raises serious constitutional questions:
The Precedent: For the first time in modern history, a President has deployed military forces in an American city over the explicit objections of state and local officials, without clear evidence of insurrection or inability of local authorities to maintain order.
The Constitutional Issue: This deployment appears to exceed presidential authority as defined by the Youngstown framework—the President is acting without congressional authorization and against state wishes, placing his authority at its "lowest ebb."
The Broader Danger: If sustained, this deployment could normalize the use of federal military force as a political tool rather than a last resort for genuine emergencies.
Why It Matters: The constitutional balance between federal and state authority, and between executive power and judicial oversight, is being tested in real time. The outcome will set precedents for how future Presidents can respond to domestic dissent.
📰 What This Means in Plain Language
When evaluating any presidential action, ask:
Is this power explicitly granted by the Constitution or federal law?
Has Congress authorized this specific action?
Are constitutional rights being protected or violated?
Is the action subject to judicial review and oversight?
Does it respect the balance between federal and state authority?
📚 Footnotes
[1]: USA Today, "LA protests went from small to substantial over three days," June 9, 2025. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/06/09/la-protests-timeline-ice/84106969007/
[2]: New York Times, "Timeline and Maps of the L.A. Immigration Protests and the Federal Response," June 8, 2025. (Updated June 10, 2025) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/06/08/us/la-immigration-protests-photos-map.html
[3]: NBC News, "ICE arrests record number of immigrants in single day, including hundreds at scheduled appointments," June 5, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/ice-arrests-record-number-immigrants-single-day-rcna210817
[4]: The Atlantic, Juliette Kayyem, "Trump's Gross Misuse of the National Guard," June 10, 2025. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/trump-california-national-guard/683093/
[5]: The Guardian, "LA mayor says a curfew is an option being discussed," June 10, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jun/10/los-angeles-protests-la-donald-trump-ice-gavin-newsom-california-live-latest-news?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-68487b488f08a2d0af27afa9#block-68487b488f08a2d0af27afa9
[6]: Reuters, "Trump administration deploys Marines to Los Angeles," June 10, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/los-angeles-police-order-immigration-protesters-downtown-go-home-2025-06-09/
[7]: The Guardian, "Hegseth says he anticipates military will remain in LA for 60 days," June 10, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/jun/10/los-angeles-protests-la-donald-trump-ice-gavin-newsom-california-live-latest-news?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-684855d18f0847b9d7ae4f18#block-684855d18f0847b9d7ae4f18
[8]: National Archives, Harry S. Truman Museum, What the President Can and Cannot Do: Keeping the Balance. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-president-can-do-cannot-do
[9]: Reuters, "Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way," June 13, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/marines-prepare-los-angeles-deployment-protests-spread-across-us-2025-06-12/
[10]: U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
[11]: U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
[12]: U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
[13]: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/
[14]: United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/683/
[15]: 18 U.S.C. § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1385&num=0&edition=prelim
[16]: 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255 - Insurrection Act. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section251&num=0&edition=prelim
[17]: 10 U.S.C. § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section12406&num=0&edition=prelim
[18] Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), slip op. at 5-6.
[19] Id. at 9.
[20] Id. at 14.
[21] Id. at 14 (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 754 (1982)).
[22] Id. at 15 ("There is no immunity for unofficial acts").
[23] Id. at 18 ("courts may not inquire into the President's motives").
[24] Id. at 30 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
[25] Zachary S. Price, "Even if the President is Immune, His Subordinates are Not," Yale Journal on Regulation Notice & Comment (July 11, 2024), https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/even-if-the-president-is-immune-his-subordinates-are-not-by-zachary-s-price/.
[26] Id. ("he or she will often be able to take unlawful action only if subordinate officers are willing to risk personal legal jeopardy or career damage by doing so").
[27] Id. ("even civil officers such as judges and prosecutors who are absolutely immunity from civil damages may still be subject to criminal prosecution, and unlawful government actions may sometimes violate criminal laws").
[28] Id.
[29] 10 U.S.C. § 892 (requiring obedience only to "lawful" orders); Marine Corps Base Quantico, "The Difference Between Oath of Office, Oath of Enlistment" (July 30, 2015), https://www.quantico.marines.mil/news/news-article-display/article/611510/the-difference-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/.
[30] Id. ("Article 90 of the UCMJ states that service members are only obligated to obey lawful orders"); 10 U.S.C. § 892.
[31] David Schultz, "The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe," The Conversation (June 30, 2022), https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-overturned-precedent-dozens-of-times-including-striking-down-legal-segregation-and-reversing-roe-185941.
[32] Brad Brooks and Luc Cohen, "Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way," Reuters (June 13, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/marines-prepare-los-angeles-deployment-protests-spread-across-us-2025-06-12/.
[33] Joseph Nunn, “The Posse Comitatus Act Explained. The Brennan Center for Justice. (Updated June 11, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained
[34] Joseph Nunn, “The Insurrection Act Explained, The Brennan Center For Justice. (Updated June 10, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained
Engage For Democracy explainers are curated through close analysis of primary legal documents and expert sources, with research and editorial support from OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude. All findings are independently reviewed and documented with verifiable citations. Engage For Democracy is a nonpartisan civic education project committed to constitutional accountability, the rule of law, and democratic norms. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, any inadvertent errors are mine alone.
📣 Thank you for reading this explainer.
Next up: A special action-focused edition detailing specific civic steps we can take in response to these constitutional challenges.
Together, we can:
📚 Read to better understand how constitutional limits protect us all
🤝 Share to build informed civic engagement
✊ Act to defend democratic institutions and the rule of law
Knowledge is power—and in constitutional crises, civic literacy is our strongest defense.
In solidarity,
Engage For Democracy