Posts published in “Featured”

Hegseth's Sept. 2 strike order on suspected traffickers raises legal alarm over military duty to reject unlawful commands and protect shipwreck survivors.

Appointing JAGs as immigration judges raises legal alarms over military roles in civilian courts, due process risks, and possible Posse Comitatus violations.

Military leaders today face one of the most serious challenges of confronting a direct threat to the oath they take to support and defend the Constitution. Every service member is trained on two fundamental principles: orders from superiors are presumed to be lawful and must be strictly followed, but if there is ever a conflict between those orders and the law, the law always prevails.

On September 2, 2025, President Trump announced that the U.S. military had attacked a Venezuelan vessel suspected of carrying drugs, killing 11 people. The administration defended the strike as an act of “self-defense” against a "narcoterrorist" group called Tren de Aragua (TdA). However, many experts quickly criticized the attack, arguing it violated both U.S. and international law. For instance, Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman called it an "indefensible breach of the fundamental norm against targeting civilians."

The recent and unprecedented decision by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to fire top military officers—including the heads of the Judge Advocates General Corps (TJAGs)—shocked many. While this mass dismissal signaled a worrying shift in how the administration views military leadership, it also highlighted a deeper, often overlooked issue: institutional rules prevent the thousands of lower-ranking military lawyers (JAGs) from being the final defense against illegal orders.