National Guard and DHS

  Patrick G. Eddington at Cato:

The normal peacetime mission of the NG in any state or territory is to be available to help with actual emergencies that affect that state, usually of the natural disaster variety. The California NG has often played a role in helping contain the wildfires that have plagued that state for years now. Those are totally appropriate missions for state NGs to perform.

When I was a young enlisted soldier in the Missouri NG in 1983, my transportation unit was called up to provide anti-looting and commercial business security in the wake of a tornado that had swept through part of my hometown of Springfield. Our unit leadership was so concerned that there not be a shooting incident involving any member of our unit that we deployed without bolts in our M‑16s (i.e., the rifles couldn’t fire). We could still have used the weapons as de facto clubs, I guess, but the main point of our deployment was providing physical security for an area of the city that had just been hit by a major tornado. We had no lawful arrest or detention authority; that was the job of the Springfield Police Department.

Contrast that with the regime’s flip-flop on whether NG troops deployed to DC would be armed—earlier this week, it was announced they would not be armed. Then the story changed to “some might be armed.” Putting young NG personnel on DC’s streets—none of whom likely know the first thing about civilian criminal law—in a politically volatile environment is inviting a Kent State-like tragedy.

On my way into DC today, I had a roughly 15-minute chat with two young NG members. To protect their identities, I’m not going to reveal the state or unit they’re with or their genders. After I introduced myself, I asked these NG members what kind of legal training (if any) they’d received prior to their deployment to the District. They spoke in extremely general terms, and it was clear they were uncomfortable going into details about the training. What they did say was that if they were in doubt about their actions, their orders were to “lean on their leadership” and the civilian police on hand and nearby. The NG personnel I spoke with were simply standing around, providing “a presence” (their words) to “help the American people.” The latter formulation is consistent with the Trump regime’s propaganda line about the massive, multi-state NG deployment to the nation’s capital.

ICE RECRUITING VIDEO (SOUTH PARK VERSION)

Bill Lueders at The Bulwark:

In June, Border Patrol agents—not ICE, exactly, but close—apprehended Narciso Barranco, a 48-year-old man in Santa Ana, California. They chased him down, pepper-sprayed him, threw him to the ground, and punched him repeatedly in the head as he cried out in pain. Was it for raping, murdering, pedophilia, or gang activity?

None of the above. The guy is a landscaper! He was doing some work outside of an IHOP. He’s been in the United States since the 1990s and three of his sons are Marines, two of them on active duty. Although Noem’s DHS claimed Barranco “swung a weed whacker” at one of the heavily armed masked men who accosted him, it’s apparent from the video that he was not a danger to anyone.

Neither was Yeonsoo Go, a 20-year-old South Korean student at Purdue University, whose mother is a well-known and respected Episcopal priest. In late July, ICE agents arrested Go when she showed up at an immigration hearing to get her R-2 visa for the dependents of religious workers converted into a student visa, a perfectly legal thing to do. The agents claimed she had overstayed her current visa, but in fact it does not expire until December. Nonetheless, Go was thrown into detention for five days, before public outrage forced her release.

Cases like these are the norm and not the exception. Through late June, according to the Cato Institute, 65 percent of the more than 200,000 people arrested by ICE since October 2024, the start of the current fiscal year, had no criminal history, and most of those who did were for minor offenses.

 

"There's a Flip Side to That Coin."

 A number of posts have discussed "Miles' Law," that is, where you stand depends on where you sit.  Attitudes toward procedures and institutions depend on whether you control them.  At Axios, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write:

Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers.

Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: 

1. Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress.
2.  Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency.
3. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law.
4. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants.
5. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term.
6. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president.
7. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up.
8. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment.
9. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values.
10. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant.

Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting.Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded.

And since losing control of the Senate, Democrats have gone quiet on abolishing the filibuster. 

For decades, Democrats said that the term "states' rights" was coded racism -- until they used the term in defense of same-sex marriage.

The Guard in LA

For the first time in sixty years, a president has activated the National Guard without a request from the state's governor -- in this case, over his vocal opposition.

Charlie Savage and Laurel Rosenhall at NYT:

A federal appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for President Trump to keep using the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles, declaring that a judge in San Francisco erred last week when he ordered Mr. Trump to return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California.

In a unanimous, 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the conditions in Los Angeles were sufficient for Mr. Trump to decide that he needed to take federal control of California’s National Guard and deploy it to ensure that federal immigration laws would be enforced.

A lower-court judge had concluded that the protests were not severe enough for Mr. Trump to use a rarely-triggered law to federalize the National Guard over Mr. Newsom’s objections. But the panel, which included two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., disagreed with the lower court.

...

Supreme Court precedent “does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the president could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith,” the appeals court wrote.

But, the judges said, the violent actions of some protesters in Los Angeles had hindered immigration enforcement, and that was sufficient for the judiciary to defer to Mr. Trump’s decision to invoke the call-up statute.

The appeals court also rejected the state’s contention that the call-up order was illegal because Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, sent the directive to a general in charge of the National Guard, even though the statute says any such edict must go “through” the governor. The court said the general was Governor Newsom’s agent, and that was good enough.

“Even if there were a procedural violation, that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court’s” order stripping Mr. Trump of control of the guard, the ruling added.

The Guard

For the first time in sixty years, a president has activated the National Guard without a request from the state's governor -- in this case, over his vocal opposition.

Juliette Kayyem at The Atlantic:

Trump’s decision—to exercise his Title 10 authority to federalize the National Guard under his command—was not based on a careful assessment of the operational needs on the streets of Los Angeles. Even if the White House’s escalating rhetoric and threats of full military deployment were justified by circumstances that merited overruling a governor, the notion that the armed services will stop protests and quiet widespread outrage about Trump’s immigration-enforcement policies in California is naive and flawed. Implicated in Trump’s decision was a lot of prior controversy—immigration and deportation, ICE raids, tension between blue states and the White House, a personal beef with Newsom—but the president’s assertion that a troop presence is the answer to public unrest is particularly dubious. Historically, these deployments have proved of limited value even when the president and governor agree on goals. Sending in the military as a hostile force is a recipe for trouble.

...

Right now, the Pentagon appears not even to have arranged sleeping arrangements for its troops, let alone determined the rules of engagement on the streets; the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the deployment was so “wildly underprepared” that troops are sleeping in cramped quarters on the floor. At best, this deployment will be completely unnecessary. At worst, it will be deeply counterproductive. But Trump’s motive is transparent—and he will surely engineer an occasion to keep escalating his power plays, until they seem normal.

Boots on LA Ground

For the first time in sixty years, a president has activated the National Guard without a request from the state's governor -- in this case, over his vocal opposition.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SUBJECT: Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions

Numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of Federal law by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions and supporting the faithful execution of Federal immigration laws. In addition, violent protests threaten the security of and significant damage to Federal immigration detention facilities and other Federal property. To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.

In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations. Further, I direct and delegate actions as necessary for the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority. The members and units of the National Guard called into Federal service shall be at least 2,000 National Guard personnel and the duration of duty shall be for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.

To carry out this mission, the deployed military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security prior to withdrawing any personnel from any location to which they are sent. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security may delegate to subordinate officials of their respective Departments any of the authorities conferred upon them by this memorandum.

DONALD J. TRUMP

10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call

Whenever—

(1)the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2)there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3)the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, § 1662(f)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2994; amended Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1057(a)(5), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440.)

Military Stats

Many posts have discussed the US military.

Jenn Hatfield at Pew:

As of the end of March, the U.S. military had 1.32 million active-duty members, according to DMDC figures. This is an increase of 1.5% over the year prior, when there were about 1.30 million. (Active-duty military are those who work for the military full time. They do not include personnel in the Reserve or National Guard.)

Nearly 450,000 active-duty military members serve in the Army, the most of any military branch. The Navy has the second-largest number of active-duty members (about 334,000), followed by the Air Force and Marine Corps. The Coast Guard and Space Force are much smaller, with fewer than 50,000 active-duty members each.

All branches of the military have gained active-duty members in the past year. The Navy has gained the most in overall numbers (about 7,300). The Space Force and the Coast Guard have grown the most in percentage terms (6.1% and 3.4%, respectively).

Active-duty military members are assigned to work in every state and internationally, according to DMDC data. A large majority (86%) are stationed domestically, while 14% are stationed internationally.

The number of active-duty military working in each state varies greatly, based partly on the locations of military bases. California has the most active-duty military, with about 157,500. Virginia and Texas also have more than 100,000.

Six states have fewer than 1,000 active-duty military, and Vermont has the fewest of all with 128.

Some branches of the military have an especially large footprint in certain states:Texas has about 65,400 active-duty Army members, about 16,000 more than any other state. There are five Army bases there, the second-most of any state after Virginia.

Virginia (73,500) and California (72,500) have by far the most active-duty Navy members. No other state has even half that many, even though states like Florida, Maryland and Washington have roughly similar numbers of naval bases.

Colorado has about 4,300 active-duty Space Force members, nearly three times more than any other state. Three of the nation’s six Space Force bases are in Colorado

.

Vaccine Mandate for National Guard

Jordan Williams at The Hill:

An Oklahoma federal judge on Tuesday denied an attempt from the state to block the Department of Defense’s coronavirus vaccine mandate for National Guard members.

In a 29-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot denied a motion from Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) and Attorney General John O’Connor to preliminarily enjoin the mandate, saying the plaintiffs’ claims were without merit.

“The court is required to decide this case on the basis of federal law, not common sense. But, either way, the result would be the same,” Friot wrote. “The claims asserted by the Governor and his co-plaintiffs are without merit.”

From the ruling:

The constitutional allocation of responsibility for Guard matters has been fleshed out by Congress. The beginning point, understandably relied upon by the defendants, is 32 U.S.C. § 110: “The President shall prescribe regulations, and issue orders, necessary to organize, discipline, and govern the National Guard.” In turn, the Service Secretaries (as relevant here, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force) are empowered to “prescribe such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out provisions of law relating to the reserve components under the Secretary’s jurisdiction.” 10 U.S.C. § 10202(a).

Apropos of the constitutional grant of power to Congress to provide for “organizing” and “disciplining” the Militia, Congress has directed that “[t]he discipline, including training, of the Army National Guard shall conform to that of the Army. The discipline, including training, of the Air National Guard shall conform to that of the Air Force.” 32 U.S.C. § 501. If the Guard fails to comply with federal standards, the President is empowered to cut off its funding: “If, within a time fixed by the President, a State fails to comply with a requirement of this title, or a regulation prescribed under this title, the National Guard of that State is barred, in whole or in part, as the President may prescribe, from receiving money or any other aid, benefit, or privilege authorized by law.” 32 U.S.C. § 108. If a state should find federal standards governing the National Guard to be too tight a fit, the state is free to establish (and pay for) its own, independent version. 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). Oklahoma has not done so.

The upshot of all this is that, however wide-ranging the command authority of the Governor and the Adjutant General may be within the four corners of their own state (and the court does not presume to define the extent of that authority other than as is strictly necessary for present purposes), it is unmistakably clear that the intent of Congress, as expressed in the text of its enactments, is that the Guard and its members will at all events be prepared, conformably to federal military standards, Case 5:21-cv-01136-F Document 41 Filed 12/28/21 Page 19 of 29 20 to be ordered into federal service, deploying alongside members of the active duty Army and Air Force, on little or no notice, anywhere in the world–which is exactly what the Oklahoma Guard and its members have done, with great distinction, on dozens of occasions

Survey of Military Families

From Blue Star Families:

Blue Star Families’ annual Military Family Lifestyle Survey (aMFLS) has been providing a comprehensive understanding of the experiences and challenges encountered by military families since 2009. It offers crucial insight and data to help inform national leaders, local communities, and philanthropic actors—functions that are even more important as decision makers assess how to support military and veteran families while the nation recovers from a global pandemic. Blue Star Families conducted its 11th annual Military Family Lifestyle Survey from September to October 2020. Capturing experiences of nearly 11,000 respondents worldwide, and generating millions of data points, it remains the largest and most comprehensive survey of active-duty, National Guard, and Reserve service members, veterans, and their families.

SUPPORTING MILITARY FAMILIES STRENGTHENS NATIONAL SECURITY & LOCAL COMMUNITIES

The tumultuous events of 2020 intensified some pre-existing concerns common across military families including spouse employment, child care, military children’s education and time away. This year’s events underscored the importance of addressing these long-standing concerns, while also shining a spotlight on systemic problems. While the stormy year of 2020 created significant challenges, it also clarified issues and sparked changes, giving stakeholders interested in supporting military and veteran families a clearer view of the path to recovery.

The 2020 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive Report examines these shifts and opportunities through the social determinants of health, exploring the five pillars that set the conditions for individual and family health and well-being: community and social context, health care access, education access and quality, neighborhood and the built environment, and economic stability.1


Executive Summary

Comprehensive Infographic

COVID-19 Impacts Infographic

Community and Social Context

Discrimination in the Military: Service members reported experiencing racial and gender discrimination, potentially impacting readiness and retention. Most did not report the most recent incident of discrimination. Also, a smaller proportion of those active-duty service member respondents who experienced military connected racial discrimination (43%) would recommend service than those who had not experienced discrimination (63%). Nearly one in 10 veterans of color reported racial discrimination was one of the reasons they left military service.

Unit Communication and Leadership: Fewer than half of service members reported feeling a sense of belonging to their unit. The number was even lower for female service members. Fewer than half agreed their command communicates well, and makes good decisions, but those who did agree reported significantly less stress.

Family Needs During Deployment: More than half of families who experienced a deployment or activation during COVID-19 experienced an unanticipated extension of their time apart. Service members and their family members reported their top needs during deployment include communication, opportunities to exercise, and access to medical care and mental health resources.

Voting: The overwhelming majority of military family respondents are registered to vote. Their decisions about where they registered were influenced by rules/regulations and their desire to maintain connection to specific communities. Military families are highly civically engaged.

National Guard/Reserve Service Members: Reserve and National Guard service members reported negative employment consequences during their career after an activation or deployment. Despite federal legal protections, nearly a quarter (23%) of National Guard and a third (34%) of Reserve service member respondents noted negative consequences with their civilian employers after returning from activation, such as losing promotion or training opportunities, involuntary reductions in hours or pay, or loss of employment.

Female Service Members and Veterans: Throughout the military life cycle, female service member respondents face greater challenges with balancing military and family life and report more negative experiences associated with service than their male counterparts. Service experiences are complex, and experiences of gender-based discrimination, harassment, assault, and general life challenges often occur alongside positive experiences of meaningful work and camaraderie with peers.

Health Care Access

Mental Health: Families still experience barriers to mental health care; 21% would like to receive care but do not currently. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of active-duty spouse respondents and 16% of active-duty service member respondents indicated having a current diagnosis for Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Despite increased use of telehealth services, active-duty family member respondents continue to report difficulty scheduling appointments, difficulty getting time off work for treatment, difficulty finding child care, and concerns about confidentiality.

Education Access and Quality

Relocation and Military Children with Special Needs: Active-duty families with children with special needs experience difficulty accessing educational and health care support services, particularly during relocation; these issues were exacerbated by COVID-19. The majority (78%) of active-duty family respondents with a child receiving special education services lost all or some of those educational support services during COVID-19 closures. Those transitioning to a new duty station encountered additional challenges; half of active-duty 6 family respondents with a child enrolled in special education, who PCSed since March 2020, reported they had trouble transferring their child(ren)’s IEP (51%) or 504 Plan (48%) to their new school.

Changing School Modality: Virtual education tripled in the last year, and more families are moving to homeschooling. Fifty-one percent of active-duty family respondents reported their oldest child participated in virtual education delivery in the 2020-2021 school year; 13% reported homeschooling. The shift to virtual education has impeded spouse employment; 36% of active-duty spouse respondents who are not working reported they were not working so they could homeschool their child(ren) or supervise virtual schooling.

Neighborhood and the Built Environment

Housing Choices: Most families pay well over the monthly out-of-pocket housing costs the Department of Defense projects they should be paying ($70-$158); of those active-duty families who reported out of pocket costs, 77% pay more than $200 out-of-pocket each month. When choosing housing, families prioritize proximity to base, family safety, a desirable school district, pet acceptance, and whether BAH will cover the costs. Financial stress increases with greater out-of-pocket housing costs.

Economic Stability

Child Care: Child care remains a top barrier to spouse employment, and it has intensified during COVID-19; it’s a greater challenge for families with kids with special needs. Lower income families have a harder time finding child care that works for their situation, but higher-income families still encounter challenges. Over half of service member respondents reported “permission to work remotely” would alleviate child care and schooling challenges.

Food Insecurity: While low food security is most prominent among junior enlisted family respondents (29%), higher ranking enlisted families also experience it. Fourteen percent of enlisted active-duty family respondents reported low or very low food security.

Spouse Employment: The spouse unemployment rate is higher in active-duty spouse respondents of color (27% vs. 17%) and recently relocated spouses (31% vs. 16%). Since March 2020, 42% of active-duty spouse respondents who had been working prior to the pandemic reported they had stopped working at some point during it, with layoffs and furloughs as the top reported cause. Most (68%) of those who stopped working remained unemployed at the time of survey fielding. Spouses identified remote/telework, transferring to a new location within the same company, and more flexibility from their service member’s command over their day-to-day job demands as preferred solutions.

The full report can be found here:
2020 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive Report

The National Guard, Armed Forces, and Civil Disorder

Events in Ferguson raise the question of the role of the armed force in domestic unrest.  From Charles Doyle and Jennifer Elsea, "The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law," Congressional Research Service, August 16, 2012:

Section 333 of Title 10 permits the President to use the Armed Forces to suppress any “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” if law enforcement is hindered within a state, and local law enforcement is unable to protect individuals, or if the unlawful action “obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This section was enacted to implement the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee for equal protection. It does not require the request or even the permission of the governor of the affected state.

The provision lay dormant after the end of Reconstruction until 1957, when President Eisenhower ordered a battle group of the 101st Airborne Division into Little Rock 246 and federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard 247 in order to enforce a court order permitting nine black students to attend a previously white high school. The proclamation to disperse cited both Sections 332 and 333 of Title 10, U.S. Code.248 By federalizing the Arkansas Guard, the President effectively deprived the governor of forces that had several days previously been used to enforce the governor’s view of law and order.249

Presidents Kennedy and Johnson followed the Little Rock precedent to deal with resistance to court-ordered desegregation in a number of Southern states. In 1962, after the governor of Mississippi attempted to prevent black student James H. Meredith from registering at the University of Mississippi at Oxford, President Kennedy sought to enforce the court order  with federal marshals.250 When marshals met with resistance from state forces and later a  riotous mob, President Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard and ordered active Army troops  already gathered in the area to take action.251 The President’s proclamation to disperse named the governor and other state officials as forming the unlawful assemblies obstructing the enforcement of the court order, citing as authority both Sections 332 and 333.252 President Kennedy followed a similar course of action to confront state resistance to court ordered desegregation in Alabama twice in 1963.253 President Johnson cited the same authority in 1965 to deploy troops, both regular Army and federalized National Guard, to Alabama to protect civil rights marchers as they made their way from Selma, AL, to Montgomery.254

• 246 PAUL SCHEIPS, THE ROLE OF FEDERAL MILITARY FORCES IN DOMESTIC DISORDERS, 1945-1992  (2005), at 40. 

• 247 Exec. Ord. No. 10,730, 22 Fed. Reg. 7628 (Sept. 24, 1957).  

• 248 Proclamation No. 3204, 22 Fed. Reg. 7628 (Sept. 24, 1957).  

• 249 Robert W. Coakley, Federal Use of Militia and the National Guard in Civil Disturbances, in BAYONETS IN THE  STREETS, 17, 30 (Robin Higham, ed. 1989). The governor had ordered the National Guard to enforce segregation by  preventing students from entering any high school that had previously been used exclusively for students of another  race, in defiance of a federal court order. See SCHEIPS, supra footnote 246, at 34.  

• 250 See SCHEIPS, supra footnote 246, at 86-87.  

• 251 Id. at 87-93; Exec. Ord. No. 11053, 27 Fed. Reg. 9693 (Oct. 2, 1962).  

• 252 Proclamation No. 3497, 27 Fed. Reg. 9681 (Oct. 2, 1962).  

• 253 Proclamation 3542, 28 Fed. Reg. 5705 (June 12, 1963); Exec. Order No. 11,111, 28 Fed. Reg. 5709 (June 12, 1963); Proclamation 3554, 28 Fed. Reg. 9861 (Sept. 11, 1963); Exec. Order 11,118, 28 Fed. Reg. 9863 (Sept. 11, 1963).  

• 254 Proclamation No. 3645, 30 Fed. Reg. 3739 (Mar. 20, 1965); Exec. Ord. No. 11,207, 30 Fed. Reg. 3743. The governor was enjoined by court order from interfering with the march, and he refused to call out the Alabama National Guard to protect the marchers on the grounds that he did not want the state to foot the bill. See SCHEIPS, supra footnote 246, at 162-63.