Joseph Nunn
Role at the time: Brennan Center counsel writing legal analysis
Statement summary
Nunn argues that apart from a narrow exception for repelling armed enemies of the United States, no emergency power overrides Section 592's ban on troops at the polls, and that the law was designed for emergencies so that security crises would not become crises for American democracy.
“Apart from this single, narrow exception—which is necessary both as a practical matter and in recognition of the president’s inherent constitutional authority to repel sudden armed attacks—there is no emergency override for Section 592’s prohibition on placing troops at the polls. On the contrary, the law was designed precisely for emergencies, to ensure that future security crises would not lead to crises for American democracy.”
Why we used this label
Relative to the prospect of ICE and other armed federal agents at polling places, Nunn writes that Section 592 criminalizes deploying federal troops or armed federal law enforcement agents to any polling place and that such a deployment would be clearly illegal. In this passage he argues that no emergency power lifts the ban, so condemns fits. His argument centers on troops; he names armed federal agents in describing what the statute covers.