When Gov. Bill Lee confirmed that Tennessee National Guard troops would assist in a new federal-state crime task force in Memphis, his announcement was framed around urgency and safety. What he did not provide, however, was a clear legal explanation for the deployment.
That absence of detail has prompted questions—not accusations—about how the operation fits within Tennessee’s constitutional framework. To be clear, there is no indication that Lee or Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti have acted unlawfully. The issue instead lies in the murky overlap between 19th-century constitutional language and modern crime-fighting initiatives.
What the Constitution Says
Article III, Section 5 of the Tennessee Constitution gives the governor command of the state’s militia but restricts its activation to “cases of rebellion or invasion,” and only when “the General Assembly declares by law that public safety requires it.”
That clause was written long before organized state law enforcement or the modern National Guard existed. Its purpose was to prevent unilateral use of military power within the state except in extraordinary emergencies.
Today, those same forces can be mobilized under Title 32 of federal law, which allows governors to use Guard units for certain missions while the federal government covers expenses. This mechanism has been used for border deployments, natural disasters, and temporary public-safety operations in other states.
The Ambiguity Behind the Memphis Mission
The Memphis Safe Task Force, a joint initiative created under the federal government’s “crime surge” effort, includes Guard members working alongside federal and local agencies. Under Title 32, the troops remain under Lee’s control, not federal command.
Because Lee has not declared a state of emergency or cited a specific statutory authority, it remains unclear precisely how this fits within the constitutional language on “rebellion or invasion.” Legal scholars differ on whether crime waves or major law-enforcement surges can qualify as public safety emergencies under that clause.
The governor’s office has not released its internal legal analysis, and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office has declined to comment. That silence doesn’t imply wrongdoing—it simply leaves the public without a clear understanding of the legal rationale being used.
The Withdrawn Attorney General Opinion
Adding to the uncertainty is a 2021 opinion issued by a prior attorney general that warned against using the National Guard for domestic law enforcement outside of rebellion or invasion. Skrmetti quietly withdrew that opinion in April 2024 but has not disclosed what legal developments justified doing so.
By law, such opinions can only be withdrawn if the underlying statutes or court rulings change. No such change appears in public record. Skrmetti’s office has cited attorney-client privilege as the reason for not sharing the rationale, which is legally permissible but unusual in matters of public constitutional interpretation.
Again, this does not mean the current deployment violates the constitution—it simply means the state’s legal reasoning has not been shared with the public.
Legislative Role and Historical Precedent
The Tennessee General Assembly has not yet authorized the Memphis deployment. In past situations, lawmakers have provided retroactive approval for Guard missions. In 2024, Tennessee lawmakers passed resolutions expressing support for Gov. Lee’s decision to send National Guard troops to Texas to assist in border security operations, but they did not enact a law formally authorizing the deployment.
Sen. Mark Pody, R-Lebanon, a strong advocate of constitutional restraint, has publicly cautioned that the state should be “very careful” before sending troops anywhere without legislative involvement. He also noted that this Memphis mission appears to be short-term and will likely conclude before the General Assembly reconvenes in January.
That pattern—executive action followed by legislative ratification—is common and typically uncontroversial once lawmakers weigh in.
How Other States Have Handled Similar Deployments
Governors in states such as Texas, California, and Florida have used Title 32 Guard orders to assist in public safety missions ranging from border control to disaster recovery. In each case, either a declared emergency or a legislative authorization was used to satisfy constitutional limits.
Tennessee’s approach, at least for now, relies solely on the governor’s discretion and an unpublished legal justification from the attorney general’s office. Whether that’s sufficient is a matter of interpretation, not a proven violation.
Why the Question Still Matters
The question surrounding the Memphis deployment is not about legality so much as transparency and precedent. Every time the executive branch expands the use of Guard forces, it potentially broadens what future governors may consider permissible.
The Tennessee Constitution was written to prevent standing military power from being used for routine policing. Understanding how that protection applies today—when “emergencies” look very different than in 1870—is a legitimate issue of public interest.
A Matter of Semantics, or Substance?
For some observers, this may seem like a semantic debate. Crime in Memphis is real, urgent, and deadly, and Lee’s decision reflects an attempt to use every available resource. But semantics are what define law. The phrases “rebellion or invasion” once covered nearly every scenario of public disorder. Today, they leave open questions about how modern threats fit within that language.
This is not a charge of overreach; it’s a recognition that our legal framework hasn’t fully caught up with modern governance. Clarifying that framework—through either a public legal opinion or legislative action—would serve Tennessee regardless of which party holds the governor’s office.
What Comes Next
The General Assembly could move early in the 2026 session to codify or clarify the scope of gubernatorial power under Title 32. Alternatively, the attorney general may publish a written explanation before then.
Until that happens, the Memphis Guard deployment remains a useful case study—not in misconduct, but in the quiet friction between urgency and process in Tennessee government.
Discover more from TNPOLITICO
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
