Legal Reference Desk for Revolution, Protest, Resistance, and State Authority

Full report

On this page

The intersection of political dissent, protest, and state authority represents one of the most heavily litigated and philosophically dense areas of American jurisprudence. At its core lies a profound paradox: the United States was born from a philosophical "right of revolution," yet its positive constitutional and statutory laws are meticulously designed to ensure the survival of the state, aggressively criminalizing rebellion, insurrection, and violent resistance. The following reference manual exhaustively details the boundaries of legal dissent, the execution of emergency powers, and the mechanisms of constitutional continuity, segmented into six distinct thematic pages.

Page 1: First Amendment Protest Rights, Civil Disobedience, and Public Order

The regulation of public dissent reflects the state’s attempt to balance the fundamental right to free expression with the state police power to maintain public health, safety, and unhindered commerce. This tension frequently manifests in localized public order statutes and federal property regulations.

1. Constitutional Text

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2. Statute

Statutory frameworks at both the state and federal levels heavily regulate the time, place, and manner of assembly. At the state level, the Illinois Public Demonstrations Law (430 ILCS 70\) dictates that it is unlawful for any person or group to conduct a march or assembly on roadways without providing written notice to the principal law enforcement officer, or the county sheriff, to obtain a permit1. Under 720 ILCS 5/21-3, criminal trespass to real property occurs when an individual knowingly enters or remains upon land or a building without lawful authority, or after receiving notice to depart3. Notice can be provided orally, in writing, or via identifying purple marks on trees or posts3. Trespass to real property is generally a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail, while trespass to state-supported land elevates to a Class A misdemeanor6. Furthermore, 720 ILCS 5/25-1 defines "mob action" as the knowing or reckless use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by two or more persons acting together without authority of law, carrying severe felony penalties depending on whether injury or property damage occurs7.

At the federal level, 18 U.S.C. § 1752 and 40 U.S.C. § 5104 strictly criminalize unlawful entry, parading, demonstrating, or picketing within restricted federal buildings or the United States Capitol grounds10. These statutes prohibit uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business within the Capitol12.

3. Controlling Court Doctrine

In Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967), the Supreme Court established the "collateral bar doctrine." The Court held that protesters who deliberately violate a court injunction against a march or assembly cannot subsequently challenge the constitutionality of that injunction as a defense against contempt charges13. The doctrine mandates that citizens must challenge unconstitutional laws or injunctions through the judicial process rather than bypassing the courts via civil disobedience13. The judiciary emphasized that allowing individuals to bypass the courts and violate injunctions based on their own constitutional interpretations would fatally undermine the rule of law13.

4. Historical Practice

Historically, civil rights movements and political dissidents have utilized public spaces to force political change. Demonstrations frequently cross the line from protected assembly to civil disobedience, resulting in mass arrests for trespass or blocking public thoroughfares, such as the blocking of major traffic arteries leading to international airports15. In recent years, federal prosecutors have aggressively utilized 18 U.S.C. § 1752 and 40 U.S.C. § 5104 to prosecute hundreds of individuals for trespassing and parading on Capitol grounds during the January 6, 2021, breach, resulting in numerous plea agreements and sentencing memorandums explicitly referencing the prohibition on parading in Capitol buildings12.

5. Disputed Interpretation

A persistent area of legal friction is the extent to which subjective intent matters in public order offenses. While statutes like the Illinois Public Demonstrations Law attempt to regulate objective actions, disputes arise over whether such statutes serve as pretextual tools to suppress specific political viewpoints. Recent legislative proposals in Illinois aimed to make it a Class 4 felony to block an exceptionally busy public right-of-way for more than five minutes, explicitly removing the defense of lack of notification or scheduling circumstances2. Civil liberties advocates argue such rigid statutes infringe on the disruptive nature necessary for effective protest, while proponents argue that public infrastructure must remain free for emergency medical services and peace officers2.

6. Political Philosophy

The legal framework surrounding protest is deeply intertwined with the philosophy of civil disobedience. This philosophy posits that an individual has a moral duty to violate unjust laws, but crucially, must peacefully accept the legal penalty to awaken the conscience of the community13. Civil disobedience respects the ultimate authority of the rule of law by accepting its punishments, distinguishing it from rebellion or insurrection, which seeks to overthrow the legal order entirely. The right of revolution is a philosophical concept outside the bounds of the Constitution; civil disobedience operates on the boundary, accepting positive-law consequences for moral imperatives.

7. What the Law Clearly Does Not Establish

The First Amendment clearly does not establish immunity from generally applicable criminal laws. The law does not grant a legal right to block highways, impede emergency services, or trespass on private or restricted federal property under the guise of free speech2. No legal doctrine permits the evasion of valid time, place, and manner restrictions simply because the underlying political cause is perceived as fundamentally just.

8. Currentness Date

September 2026\.

Page 2: The Right of Revolution vs. Positive Law of Treason and Sedition

The transition from the philosophical "Right of Revolution"—which justified the American founding—to the positive law of the United States illustrates the state's absolute imperative to criminalize its own violent overthrow.

1. Constitutional Text

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

2. Statute

The primary statutory vehicles used to prosecute attempts to violently overthrow or resist the government are found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, whoever "incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof" faces severe criminal penalties and disqualification from holding federal office19. More frequently utilized is 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy), which criminalizes actions where two or more persons conspire to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"19.

3. Controlling Court Doctrine

In recent years, the parameters of 18 U.S.C. § 2384 have been tested and affirmed in federal courts, notably in cases like United States v. Rhodes. The federal courts have held that a seditious conspiracy does not require a formalized plot to assassinate leaders or achieve a total governmental overthrow. Rather, an agreement to use force to hinder or delay the execution of a specific federal law—such as the lawful transfer of presidential power or the certification of electoral votes—satisfies the mens rea and actus reus standards of the statute21.

4. Historical Practice

Historically, seditious conspiracy was a rarely utilized statute. It was originally drafted during the Civil War era to prosecute Confederates and was later used sporadically against Puerto Rican nationalists and radical terror cells20. The crime of sedition traces its roots to the Star Chamber and early English law, heavily relying on punishing speech that had a "bad tendency" toward public discord21. In modern practice, the Justice Department successfully revived the statute to prosecute leaders of extremist paramilitary organizations involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, marking a historic application of the law against domestic political organizations coordinating force against legislative proceedings21.

5. Disputed Interpretation

A central point of scholarly and legal contention is the boundary between protected "rage rhetoric" under the First Amendment and an actionable agreement under the seditious conspiracy statute. Critics argue that sedition laws have historically been weaponized to criminalize political speech and dissenting ideologies, creating cyclic government crackdowns on radical organizations21. Conversely, prosecutors maintain that seditious conspiracy is strictly an inchoate crime that targets the definitive agreement to use physical force against government operations, completely detached from the political viewpoint motivating that force21.

6. Political Philosophy

The legal framework of treason and sedition definitively separates the philosophical "Right of Revolution" articulated in the Declaration of Independence from the positive law of the constitutional republic. John Locke's theory that citizens may alter or abolish a tyrannical government remains a foundational political theory, but it is not a legally cognizable defense in a federal court20. As noted by early legal scholars, once a sovereign state is established, the criminal law must protect the state's monopoly on legitimate violence to prevent a descent into a state of nature25. The survival of the constitutional order requires that conspiratorial violence be treated not as legitimate political expression, but as an existential threat.

7. What the Law Clearly Does Not Establish

The law clearly does not establish a positive legal right to violently overthrow the United States government, nor does it recognize the philosophical right of revolution as a defense to treason or sedition. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 2384 does not criminalize abstract advocacy of violence, mere membership in an anti-government organization, or peaceful civil disobedience21. An overt agreement to utilize force is required.

8. Currentness Date

September 2026\.

Page 3: Federal Military Power, the Insurrection Act, and Posse Comitatus

The deployment of the federal military on domestic soil involves navigating strict statutory prohibitions and broad executive exceptions, balancing the historical fear of a standing army with the necessity of restoring civil order when local law enforcement fails.

1. Constitutional Text

Article IV, Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause) dictates: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 grants Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"26.

2. Statute

The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), 18 U.S.C. § 1385, generally prohibits the willful use of the Army or Air Force to "execute the laws" unless "expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress"27. The primary express statutory exception is the Insurrection Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255.

 

3. Controlling Court Doctrine

In Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 12 (1827), the Supreme Court ruled on a replevin action challenging a court-martial fine levied against a militiaman who refused to deploy during the War of 1812\. Justice Joseph Story held that the authority to decide whether the exigencies exist to call forth the militia "belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons"32. This long-standing precedent heavily limits judicial review of a president's factual determination that an insurrection or rebellion is occurring, treating the executive's assessment of domestic crises as a non-justiciable political question33.

4. Historical Practice

The Insurrection Act’s predecessor statutes were invoked by George Washington to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 179426. In the modern era, it was utilized to enforce civil rights and school integration against recalcitrant state governments in the 1950s and 1960s, and to restore order during the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo26. More recently, the Act was highly scrutinized when its invocation was debated, though ultimately avoided, during nationwide civil unrest in the summer of 202030. When military forces assist civil authorities under non-Insurrection Act frameworks, they operate under Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 3025.18, evaluating requests based on the "CARRLL factors" (Cost, Appropriateness, Risk, Readiness, Legality, Lethality)37.

5. Disputed Interpretation

A massive area of scholarly and political debate involves the extent to which the President may unilaterally deploy troops under 10 U.S.C. § 252 or § 253 against the express wishes of a state governor30. While the statutory text explicitly allows this if federal laws are being obstructed or civil rights are denied, federalism advocates argue that such unilateral action risks establishing a pretext for political repression or martial law, undermining state sovereignty30.

6. Political Philosophy

The interplay between the PCA and the Insurrection Act reflects the Founders' deep-seated fear of standing armies acting as tools of domestic tyranny26. The requirement in 10 U.S.C. § 254 that the President must issue a public proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deploying force serves as a philosophical and legal "checkpoint" to ensure military force remains a strictly transparent, last-resort mechanism rather than a tool for everyday policing26.

7. What the Law Clearly Does Not Establish

The Posse Comitatus Act clearly does not establish a blanket, absolute ban on the domestic use of the military27. Because the PCA explicitly permits exceptions authorized by Congress, and because Congress passed the Insurrection Act, the President retains vast statutory authority to use the military for domestic law enforcement if the specific statutory triggers are met28.

8. Currentness Date

September 2026\.

Page 4: Martial Law, Emergency Powers, and Federal Contracting

When political crises escalate to threats against the state's survival, the executive branch frequently looks to emergency powers spanning from the suspension of civil liberties to the redirection of the civilian economy. The legal boundaries of these powers represent the ultimate test of the separation of powers doctrine.

1. Constitutional Text

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Article II, Section 2 designates the President as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

2. Statute

To constrain indefinite states of emergency, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1621–1622)42. The NEA requires the President to formally declare an emergency to unlock specific statutory powers and traditionally allowed Congress to terminate the emergency via a concurrent resolution, though subsequent legislative proposals aim to require affirmative joint resolutions to extend emergencies beyond thirty days42. Additionally, the Defense Production Act of 1950 (DPA) (50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.) allows the executive to command private industry to prioritize government contracts. Under Title I of the DPA, the government can force private businesses to accept and prioritize orders to promote the national defense45. Similarly, 10 U.S.C. § 3204 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 18 grant the executive branch sweeping flexibilities for emergency procurement, allowing contracting officers to bypass full and open competition when the agency's need is of unusual and compelling urgency or public exigency48.

3. Controlling Court Doctrine

In Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court ruled that the military cannot try civilians in military tribunals so long as the civilian courts are open and functioning, famously declaring that the Constitution applies equally in war and peace51. This was forcefully reaffirmed in Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946), striking down the use of military tribunals in Hawaii during World War II when regular courts were capable of functioning51.

Regarding the limits of executive emergency power, the controlling doctrine is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The Court held that President Truman could not unilaterally seize private steel mills to avert a labor strike during the Korean War54. Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion established an enduring tripartite framework for analyzing executive power:

 

4. Historical Practice

Presidents have aggressively utilized emergency powers, from Lincoln's unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War to modern uses of the Defense Production Act. The DPA was invoked extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic to mandate the production of ventilators, testing kits, and vaccines, effectively commanding private industrial capacity45. FAR Part 18 flexibilities are routinely activated during national disasters to rapidly execute single-source solicitations59. Under the National Emergencies Act, states of emergency declared after the September 11 attacks have been continually renewed for decades42.

5. Disputed Interpretation

A continual dispute is whether the President holds inherent, unenumerated "emergency powers" under Article II that allow action beyond statutory authorization56. While Youngstown largely rejected this absolutist view regarding domestic property seizures, the boundary remains blurred when modern presidents invoke statutory emergency powers (like the NEA or DPA) to bypass regular legislative appropriations for border security or energy infrastructure, testing the limits of congressional delegation44.

6. Political Philosophy

The rejection of absolute martial law in Milligan and Duncan reflects the American philosophy that "our system of government clearly is the antithesis of total military rule"52. As Justice Jackson warned in his Youngstown concurrence, emergency powers "tend to kindle emergencies," reflecting the liberal democratic fear that autocracy is often born under the guise of necessity and that the Constitution must constrain the executive even in times of peril64.

7. What the Law Clearly Does Not Establish

The law clearly does not establish a mechanism for a President to declare "martial law" by fiat to suspend civil liberties, cancel elections, or usurp functioning civilian courts63. "Martial law" is not a statutorily defined magic word granting unlimited power; military jurisdiction over civilians remains strictly unconstitutional where civil courts operate, and emergency powers must be tethered to specific statutory grants51.

8. Currentness Date

September 2026\.

Page 5: Federalism, State Militias, and Anti-Commandeering

When political resistance manifests not through individual citizens but through state governments, the doctrines of federalism, preemption, and the reserved powers of the states dictate the balance of authority.

1. Constitutional Text

The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2\) establishes that federal law "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

2. Statute

States maintain their own military forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109, which authorizes states to organize and maintain State Defense Forces (SDFs). Crucially, unlike the National Guard, these organized state militias "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" of the federal government, leaving them under the exclusive command of state governors to respond to domestic disorders or disasters66.

3. Controlling Court Doctrine

State resistance to federal directives is protected by the "anti-commandeering doctrine," established in cases like Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), which held that the federal government cannot compel state executive officials to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program30. However, states cannot affirmatively obstruct federal law. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Court applied "field preemption" to strike down state laws that attempted to establish a state-level immigration enforcement regime (S.B. 1070). The Court held that the federal government possesses broad, undoubted power over immigration, precluding states from enacting complementary or conflicting criminal enforcement mechanisms71.

Regarding the right of states to control militias, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) held that states have the authority to prohibit private, unauthorized military organizations from drilling or parading with arms. The Court affirmed that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation on the federal government, not the states, thereby permitting states to exercise police power to dismantle private armies74.

4. Historical Practice

The anti-commandeering doctrine has been heavily utilized by states to resist federal policy, notably by states creating "sanctuary" jurisdictions that refuse to allocate local police resources to assist federal immigration enforcement or honor detainer requests70. Concurrently, over 22 states maintain active State Defense Forces to assist in domestic emergencies, retaining sovereign military assets that the President cannot federalize67.

5. Disputed Interpretation

A highly disputed interpretation is the exact line between a state lawfully refusing to assist federal enforcement (permitted under Printz) and a state actively acting as an "obstacle" to the accomplishment of federal objectives (preempted under Arizona)70. Furthermore, tensions exist regarding how far states can go in utilizing SDFs or the National Guard to enforce state policies (such as independent border security operations) when they encroach upon traditionally exclusive federal jurisdictions67.

6. Political Philosophy

Federalism serves as a structural safeguard for liberty, operating on the philosophy of dual sovereignty. By dividing power between the federal government and the states, the system ensures that state governments can act as a bulwark against federal overreach, providing a legal and political avenue for resistance that mitigates the need for violent revolution70. The existence of state-controlled militias under 32 U.S.C. § 109 echoes the Founders' belief in decentralized military power as a check against federal standing armies.

7. What the Law Clearly Does Not Establish

The Second Amendment clearly does not establish the right of citizens to form private, unregulated paramilitary groups or "private armies" to resist the government74. Presser v. Illinois affirmatively establishes that states possess the constitutional authority to ban unauthorized militias and mandate that military associations operate solely under the governor's license74.

8. Currentness Date

September 2026\.

Page 6: Constitutional Crises, Disqualification, and Continuity of Government

The most profound tests of state authority occur during transfers of executive power, requiring rigid statutory procedures to prevent systemic collapse and ensure the continuity of governance.

1. Constitutional Text

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, disqualifies any person from holding office who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution, "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"79. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Section 4, provides a mechanism to transfer presidential power if the Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments transmit a written declaration that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office"83.

2. Statute

To prevent electoral crises, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 (ECRA), overhauling 3 U.S.C. § 15\. The ECRA clarifies the purely ministerial role of the Vice President in counting electoral votes, mandates that states designate a single executive official (the Governor by default) to certify electors, and requires state laws governing elections to be set prior to Election Day85.

 

Continuity of Government (COG) operations are further operationalized by executive directives like Federal Continuity Directive 1 (FCD-1), which outlines National Essential Functions to ensure the survival of constitutional government during catastrophic emergencies89.

3. Controlling Court Doctrine

In Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot unilaterally enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify federal candidates (specifically presidential candidates) from the ballot82. The Court held that for federal offices, Section 3 is not self-executing; the Constitution grants Congress, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the exclusive power to enact legislation enforcing disqualification against federal candidates91.

4. Historical Practice

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was historically utilized during Reconstruction to bar former Confederates from office, but largely lay dormant until the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack79. The ambiguities of the original Electoral Count Act of 1887 were famously exploited during the 2020 election certification, prompting the bipartisan passage of the ECRA to close statutory loopholes and prevent future disputes over competing slates of electors87. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment has historically been utilized temporarily for planned medical procedures, but Section 4 has never been successfully invoked to involuntarily strip a sitting president of power83.

5. Disputed Interpretation

Despite the ruling in Trump v. Anderson, intense scholarly debate continues over the historical originalism of the Court's decision. Many legal historians argue that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly intended Section 3 to be self-executing and immediately applicable by state authorities without requiring separate Congressional enforcement legislation20. Additionally, the definition of "presidential inability" under Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment remains highly debated. A structural dispute exists over whether "unable to discharge" applies strictly to medical and physical incapacitation, or if it extends to psychological unfitness, catastrophic judgment, or political crisis83.

6. Political Philosophy

The frameworks governing the ECRA and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment reflect the necessity of unyielding procedural mechanisms to preserve democratic legitimacy. The ECRA removes discretionary ambiguity, reflecting the philosophy that during highly polarized transfers of power, political actors cannot be trusted with vague mandates; the law must bind them to pre-established outcomes87. The rule of law must preempt the chaos of political discretion.

7. What the Law Clearly Does Not Establish

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment clearly does not establish a mechanism to remove a President simply for political unpopularity, policy disagreements, or alleged incompetence. The rigorous procedural hurdles in Section 4—requiring a declaration by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet, granting the President 4 days to transmit a declaration of recovery, and ultimately requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress within 21 days if the dispute persists—were intentionally designed to make involuntary removal for "inability" substantially more difficult than the standard impeachment process83. Furthermore, as definitively settled by Trump v. Anderson, the law clearly does not establish the right of individual states to disqualify presidential candidates under the Fourteenth Amendment91.

8. Currentness Date

September 2026\.

Works cited

1. (430 ILCS 70/) Illinois Public Demonstrations Law. \- ILGA.gov, https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=1658\&ChapterID=39\&Print=True

2. IL HB2357 \- BillTrack50, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1812298

3. 720 ILCS 5/21-3 \- ILGA.gov, https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K21-3.htm

4. 720 ILCS 5/21-3 Criminal Trespass to Land | Chicago Crime Lawyer, https://www.720ilcs-criminal-lawyer.com/practice-areas/property-crimes/trespassing/criminal-trespass-to-land/

5. Illinois Statutes Chapter 720\. Criminal Offenses § 5/21-3 | FindLaw, https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-720-criminal-offenses/il-st-sect-720-5-21-3/

6. Criminal Trespass \- Lawler Brown Law Firm, https://lblf.com/services/criminal-trespass-illinois-law-attorney/

7. § 720 ILCS 5/25-1 – Mob Action \- Combs Waterkotte, https://www.combswaterkotte.com/illinois-criminal-laws/chapter-720-ilcs-5-25-mob-action-and-related-offenses/720-ilcs-5-25-1-mob-action/

8. Illinois Statutes Chapter 720\. Criminal Offenses § 5/25-1. Mob action, https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-720-criminal-offenses/il-st-sect-720-5-25-1/

9. Civil Disturbances and Crowd Control \- City of DeKalb, https://www.cityofdekalb.com/DocumentCenter/View/11344/4073---Civil-Disturbances-and-Crowd-Control

10. Debunking Claims of Over-Federalization of Criminal Law, https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1243\&context=elj

11. U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CRIMINAL, https://americangulag.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/34-Transmission-of-the-Notice-of-Appeal-Order-Appealed-and-Docket-Sheet-to-US-Court-of-Appeals.pdf

12. Shroyer's Role in January 6 Capitol Riot | PDF \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/669756125/Owen-Shroyer-Sentencing-Memorandum

13. Walker v. City of Birmingham | Case Brief for Law Students, https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-to-subrin/an-introduction-to-civil-procedure/walker-v-city-of-birmingham/

14. Walker v. City of Birmingham (1967) | The First Amendment, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/walker-v-city-of-birmingham/

15. State Rep. from Geneva files bill to make it a felony to block major, https://www.reddit.com/r/illinois/comments/1c77esr/state\_rep\_from\_geneva\_files\_bill\_to\_make\_it\_a/

16. (PDF) The January 6 Insurrectionists: Who They Are and What They, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372828222\_The\_January\_6\_Insurrectionists\_Who\_They\_Are\_and\_What\_They\_Did

17. Case No. 1:21-cr-00243-APM v. : : JOHN, https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/John%20Lolos%20Government%20Sentencing%20Memorandum.pdf

18. Bill Status of HB2357 \- ILGA.gov, https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus?GAID=18\&DocNum=2357\&DocTypeID=HB\&LegId=0\&SessionID=114\&Print=1

19. Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter115\&edition=prelim

20. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment: Insurrection, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2091\&context=wmborj

21. Rage Rhetoric and the Revival of American Sedition, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4036\&context=wmlr

22. Attack on the United States Capitol \- GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/html-submitted/index.html

23. Trump lashes out at Gov. Doug Ducey following certification, https://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=206\&t=4220\&start=660

24. Case 1:21-cv-03267-APM Document 145 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 73, https://statesunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/No.-145.pdf

25. Kindred to Treason\_2024 \- NYU Law, https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Kindred%20to%20Treason\_%20Sarah%20Seo%202024\_NYU%20Legal%20History.pdf

26. Calling Forth the Military: A Brief History of the Insurrection Act, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2421411/calling-forth-the-military-a-brief-history-of-the-insurrection-act/

27. The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters \- Every CRS Report, https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20181106\_R42659\_a9b336fa9e37e2302a210433da31f27bd3287cdd.pdf

28. The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22266.html

29. When Federal Power Meets State Sovereignty: \- Legal Blog and News, https://acupofjoe.law/f/when-federal-power-meets-state-sovereignty

30. Troops in California: Legal and Constitutional Implications of, https://justitiajournal.com/2025/06/23/troops-in-california-legal-and-constitutional-implications-of-federalization/

31. What is the insurrection act of 2024 \- Sorumatik, https://en.sorumatik.co/t/what-is-the-insurrection-act-of-2024/321611

32. Martin v. Mott., 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827). \- Loc, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep025/usrep025019/usrep025019.pdf

33. Presidential Discretion and the Insurrection Act \- Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/presidential-discretion-and-the-insurrection-act

34. Martin v. Mott and the Establishment of Executive Emergency Authority, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066\&context=mlh\_pubs

35. ARTICLE The Presidential Intervention Principle: The Domestic Use, https://journals.law.harvard.edu/nsj/wp-content/uploads/sites/82/2014/01/Bahar-Presidential-Intervention-Principle.pdf

36. LIMITED PRESIDENTIAL POWER UNDER THE INSURRECTION ACT, https://access.heinonline.com/hol-cgi-bin/get\_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/udlr51§ion=17

37. Operational Law Handbook \> Chapter 12: DOMESTIC OPERATIONS, https://tjaglcs.army.mil/Periodicals/Deskbooks-Handbooks/Operational-Law-Handbook?topic=Chapter+12%3A+DOMESTIC+OPERATIONS

38. JP 3-28, Defense Support of Civil Authorities, https://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/162/Docs/jp3\_28.pdf

39. Explainer: Why the “casual invocation” of the Insurrection Act by, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/democracy-governance/explainer-why-casual-invocation-insurrection

40. The Lost Amendment \- GunCite, https://guncite.com/journals/sprecher2.html

41. Don't Fear the Insurrection Act \- Center for Immigration Studies, https://cis.org/Report/Dont-Fear-Insurrection-Act

42. 50 USC 1621: Declaration of national emergency by President, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:50%20section:1621%20edition:prelim)

43. 50 USC Ch. 34: NATIONAL EMERGENCIES, https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter34\&edition=prelim

44. US HR125 \- BillTrack50, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1764908

45. Defense Production Act Invoked, Order Issued \- Steptoe, https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/defense-production-act-invoked-order-issued.html

46. U.S.C. Title 50 \- WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE \- GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title50/html/USCODE-2024-title50-chap55-subchapI.htm

47. The Trump Administration's Use of the Defense Production Act and, https://www.georgetownclimate.org/articles/gcc-explainers-the-defense-production-act-of-1950-history-structure-present-day-application-eo-and-how-it-relates-to-states.html

48. 10 U.S.C. § 3204 \- U.S. Code Title 10\. Armed Forces § 3204 | FindLaw, https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sect-3204/

49. FAR Part 18 – Emergency Acquisitions \- Thompson Hine LLP, https://www.thompsonhine.com/services/federal-acquisition-regulation-far-overhaul/far-part-18-emergency-acquisitions/

50. Part 18 \- Emergency Acquisitions, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-18

51. Limitation of Military Tribunals Over Civilian Courts: Duncan v, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/limitation-of-military-tribunals-over-civilian-courts:-duncan-v.-kahanamoku/view

52. Martial law and the Supreme Court | Law | Research Starters \- EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/martial-law-and-supreme-court/

53. DUNCAN v. KAHANAMOKU, Sheriff. WHIT v. STEER. | Supreme Court, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/327/304

54. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer | Constitutional Law I, https://fiveable.me/constitutional-law-i/key-terms/youngstown-sheet-and-tube-co-v-sawyer

55. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown\_Sheet\_%26\_Tube\_Co.\_v.\_Sawyer

56. YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) | FindLaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/343/579.html

57. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), https://constitutingamerica.org/youngstown-sheet-tube-co-v-sawyer-1952-guest-essayist-daniel-a-cotter/

58. ArtII.S1.C1.5 The President's Powers and Youngstown Framework, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C1-5/ALDE\_00013794/

59. Emergency Contracting During COVID-19: A Guide to FAR Part 18, https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2020/05/emergency-contracting-during-covid-19-a-guide-to-far-part-18/

60. Understanding the FAR: A Beginner's Guide to Government, https://fedbizaccess.com/understanding-the-far-a-beginners-guide-to-government-contracting-part-18/

61. article sovereignty, article ii, and the military during domestic unrest, https://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Mirasola\_15-Harvard-Natl-Security-J.-1-2023.pdf

62. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer \- Robert H Jackson Center, https://www.roberthjackson.org/wp-content/uploads/migrated-files/article-calendar-files/korman\_primer.pdf

63. Trump Cannot Stay In Power By Declaring Martial Law \- Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-cannot-stay-power-declaring-martial-law

64. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer | 343 U.S. 579 (1952), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/

65. Duncan v. Kahanamoku – Case Brief Summary \- Studicata, https://www.studicata.com/case-briefs/case/duncan-v-kahanamoku

66. PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/496/334.html

67. Inspector General \- StateDefenseForce.com, https://statedefenseforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DODIG-2014-065.pdf

68. State Emergency Management Director Handbook \- IN.gov, https://www.in.gov/dhs/files/NEMA-EM-Director-Handbook-2019.pdf

69. State of New Jersey \- NJ.gov, https://www.nj.gov/military/publications/naval/naval\_militia\_report\_2005.pdf

70. Can the U.S. Government Compel States to Enforce Immigration Law?, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-u.s.-government-compel-states-to-enforce-immigration-law

71. ​When Does Federal Law Preempt State Law? \- Bona Law, https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/when-does-federal-law-preempt-state-law

72. Arizona v. United States \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona\_v.\_United\_States

73. Arizona v. United States | 567 U.S. 387 (2012), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/

74. Presser v. Illinois (1886): Upholding State Authority in Militia, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/presser-v.-illinois-%281886%29%3A-upholding-state-authority-in-militia-regulation/view

75. Presser v. Illinois – Case Brief Summary \- Studicata, https://www.studicata.com/case-briefs/case/presser-v-illinois

76. 13 \- Commentary on Arizona v. United States, 567 US 387 (2012), https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/feminist-judgments-immigration-law-opinions-rewritten/commentary-on-arizona-v-united-states-567-us-387-2012/C05E87D040BF471E6BA3D73CFA0BEBE8

77. State Defense Forces and their role in American homeland security, https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=813846

78. Arizona v. United States \- Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona\_v.\_United\_States

79. A Discussion of the Supreme Court's Ruling in Trump v. Anderson, https://www.accessiblelaw.untdallas.edu/post/democracy-in-the-balance-a-discussion-of-the-supreme-court-s-ruling-in-trump-v-anderson

80. The Antiracist Constitution \- NYU Law, https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/The%20Antiracist%20Constitution--Hasbrouck%20%281%29.pdf

81. Presser v. Illinois \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser\_v.\_Illinois

82. What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Trump v. Anderson, https://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review/2023-2024/lost-opportunity-protect-democracy-against-itself-what-supreme-court-got-wrong

83. Presidential Disability Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45394.html

84. Overview of Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Presidential Vacancy and, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt25-1/ALDE\_00013871/

85. One Pager on Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/one-pager-on-electoral-count-reform-act-of-2022.pdf

86. How the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act ... \- The Fulcrum, https://thefulcrum.us/elections/research-electoral-count-reform-act-2022-election-certification-changes

87. What's in the Collins-Manchin ECA Reform, and Where It Goes From, https://www.cato.org/blog/whats-collins-manchin-eca-reform-where-it-goes-here

88. Lofgren, Cheney Introduce Bill to Reform the Electoral Count Act, https://www.cato.org/blog/lofgren-cheney-introduce-bill-reform-electoral-count-act

89. Handbook of Emergency Management For State-Level, https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/2850%20COOP%20COG%20%28with%20Covers%29.pdf

90. United States Continuity of Operations facilities \- Grokipedia, https://grokipedia.com/page/united\_states\_continuity\_of\_operations\_facilities

91. DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL., https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23-719.html

92. Trump v. Anderson | 601 U.S. \_\_\_ (2024) \- Justia Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/601/23-719/

93. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: Is Trump's Innocence, https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4014\&context=mlr

94. Trump v. Anderson | Cases \- Westlaw, https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I6d8910d2da1911eebee9cf1870d3ad4c/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default\&contextData=(sc.Default)

95. Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral\_Count\_Reform\_and\_Presidential\_Transition\_Improvement\_Act\_of\_2022

96. Understanding the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-the-electoral-count-reform-act-of-2022/

97. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment \- Constitutional Law Reporter, https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-25/

98. Originalism Chokes: The 2024 Trump Cases, https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2239\&context=hastings\_constitutional\_law\_quaterly

99. Narrow but Deep: The McCulloch Principle, Collective-Action Theory, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/const-comment/vol39/iss2/3/

100. Presidential Succession | Georgetown Center for the Constitution, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/constitution/presidential-succession-2/

101. Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth\_Amendment\_to\_the\_United\_States\_Constitution

102. Presidential Inability and the 89th Congress: Floor Debates, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt25-S1-1-4/ALDE\_00013882/

103. Options to remove or bar a president from office, https://libnews.umn.edu/2021/01/options-to-remove-or-bar-a-president-from-office/