Opinion | The line between civilian and military law enforcement is blurring. Congress must act.

Star Tribune opinion editor’s note: This article was signed by several people who have served in the federal and military justice systems. Their names are listed below.

•••

Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The systematic militarization of civilian law enforcement — exemplified by “Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota — represents a fundamental shift that endangers our democracy and our nation’s commitment to our Constitution and the rule of law.

For more than two centuries, a foundational pillar of American democracy has been the “bright line” separating civilian law enforcement from the military. As former U.S. Attorneys, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers and Department of Defense (DOD) counsel who have served under Republican and Democratic administrations, we believe a dangerous confluence of the Trump administration’s policies and actions are threatening to collapse this distinction.

Our founders’ aversion to a domestic military presence was forged in the crucible of the British occupation. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson indicted King George III for “affecting to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” This principle was later codified through the Third Amendment and the Constitution’s structural separation of powers. James Madison warned that the tools of national defense are fundamentally incompatible with the rights-based requirements of domestic law enforcement. Today, that warning is being ignored.

When federal agents operate with the tactics, gear and disregard for individual rights characteristic of a military occupation by a foreign power rather than community policing, public trust completely breaks down. In the Twin Cities, these operations have already resulted in tragic civilian fatalities and massive community trauma, creating a “war zone” mentality that our founders sought to avoid. Periodic false statements by certain administration officials and their lack of transparency have only exacerbated the situation.

As a result of the recent principled resignations of numerous Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the District of Minnesota, the DOJ and DOD reportedly are planning to assign a large number of military prosecutors from the Judge Advocate General Corps to serve as special AUSAs there. Five Judge Advocate lawyers already are in place in Minnesota and at least one of their court appearances is being challenged as a violation of this nation’s longstanding Posse Comitatus Act.

The deployment of military prosecutors to prosecute protesters and other civilians in civilian federal courts marks a radical departure from American tradition. Unlike civilian Assistant U.S. Attorneys, military prosecutors are active-duty personnel subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and a chain of command.

We agree with Mark Hertling, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general combat veteran with 37 years of service, who spoke to the risk created when civilian courts are turned over to military prosecutors.

“Civilian government attorneys can resign. Many have. That option is part of what preserves prosecutorial discretion and our rule of law. Uniformed military lawyers do not have that option … . The military’s legal corps exists to preserve the rule of law within the force … . Treating it as a reservoir of compelled compliance undermines that role and risks normalizing the idea that when some professionals say ‘no,’ the answer is to find other professionals who cannot.”

Perhaps the most direct threat to the republic is the repeated presidential threat to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civilian dissent. This act was designed as a tool of last resort for extreme emergencies — not as a political cudgel to silence protesters or bypass the objections of state governors.

Using the military to police American streets against the objections of state governors — as attempted in Chicago and Portland — violates core constitutional principles. The military is trained to defeat an enemy, not to de-escalate a protest or safeguard First Amendment rights. Deploying active-duty Marines or soldiers into American neighborhoods effectively treats American citizens as enemy combatants in their own cities. These deployments are not a solution to civil unrest; they are a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and, ultimately, a surrender of our constitutional values.

One of the American military’s great strengths is its standing as a nonpartisan institution. Forcing it into domestic political disputes and civilian law enforcement roles for which it is not trained risks permanent damage to its reputation and its relationship with the people it is sworn to defend.

We collectively have more than 130 years of experience serving as federal prosecutors and proud members of our nation’s military branches. As former stewards of the law and the military’s legal framework, we call on Congress to immediately reassert its oversight role. We must:

• Reform the Insurrection Act with clear definitions and mandatory congressional oversight.

The strength of our nation lies in the rule of law, not the rule of force. The guardrails of liberty are fraying. It is time for Congress to reinforce them and the courts to protect them.