Tennessee's appeals court handed Governor Bill Lee a victory Tuesday, allowing National Guard troops to continue patrolling Memphis as part of a federal crime-fighting task force. The decision came after state lawmakers had sued to block the deployment, claiming the Republican governor had exceeded his constitutional powers.
A lower court had initially sided with the lawmakers challenging the National Guard presence. But the three-judge panel of the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed that decision, though not on the grounds the governor might have hoped. Rather than ruling on whether Lee had the authority to deploy troops, the appellate judges found that the plaintiffs simply lacked legal standing to bring the case at all.
"Our conclusion is not that no one has standing," the panel wrote. "It is, instead, that these individuals lack standing." The opinion essentially shut the courthouse door to the lawmakers without reaching the constitutional question at stake.
State Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, also a Republican, seized on the ruling as vindication. "When elected officials disagree about policy, we resolve that at the ballot box, not the courts," he said, calling it "a big win for Memphis and a big win for Tennessee." Attorneys representing the challenging lawmakers declined to comment on the ruling.
The Memphis deployment fits a broader Trump administration pattern of sending National Guard units to Democratic-led cities criticized by the president for crime problems. However, that strategy has hit legal headwinds. In states with Democratic governors, courts have successfully challenged similar troop deployments, forcing the administration to withdraw forces from several cities.
The appeals court decision allows the Memphis operation to proceed without immediate legal threat, though it leaves unresolved the underlying question of gubernatorial authority that animated the original lawsuit. For Lee, the win removes a political irritant just as the focus on crime in major cities remains high on the national agenda.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The court took the easiest exit available, punting on a real constitutional question that voters and lawmakers clearly care about."
Comments