Alarm bells are being rung in the Capitol over the withdrawal of a legal opinion from 2021 that suggests use of the National Guard in Tennessee for crime-fighting would violate the Tennessee Constitution.
The opinion, written by former Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, was withdrawn April 19, 2024, without much, if any, public notice.
At a Sept. 30 news conference, Tennessee Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, said the withdrawn opinion suggests the upcoming deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis this week would be unconstitutional.
“That is not just reckless, but seemingly lawless,” Yarbro said about the deployment of troops to Memphis.
Yarbro called withdrawing the opinion “scrubbing the historical record.”
Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told The Tennessean the opinion was withdrawn “because it did not accurately reflect the state of the law.” The attorney general’s office withdraws opinions when it determines the state of the law has changed or the analysis was incorrect, Skrmetti said.
So just so we’re all on the same page, withdrawing a legal opinion from a former AG is not the same thing as “removing a section of the state constitution”. An AG’s opinion indicates how their office will apply the law when deciding who and how to prosecute cases, but they don’t even get the final say on how that law is interpreted. The courts do. It’s bad and definitely indicates collusion, but let’s please use the proper language to describe what’s happening.
How does an AG have the power to change a state’s constitution?
AG withdrew legal opinion in 2024 suggesting National Guard for TN policing unconstitutional
Alarm bells are being rung in the Capitol over the withdrawal of a legal opinion from 2021 that suggests use of the National Guard in Tennessee for crime-fighting would violate the Tennessee Constitution.
The opinion, written by former Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, was withdrawn April 19, 2024, without much, if any, public notice.
At a Sept. 30 news conference, Tennessee Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville, said the withdrawn opinion suggests the upcoming deployment of National Guard troops to Memphis this week would be unconstitutional.
“That is not just reckless, but seemingly lawless,” Yarbro said about the deployment of troops to Memphis.
Yarbro called withdrawing the opinion “scrubbing the historical record.”
Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti told The Tennessean the opinion was withdrawn “because it did not accurately reflect the state of the law.” The attorney general’s office withdraws opinions when it determines the state of the law has changed or the analysis was incorrect, Skrmetti said.
So just so we’re all on the same page, withdrawing a legal opinion from a former AG is not the same thing as “removing a section of the state constitution”. An AG’s opinion indicates how their office will apply the law when deciding who and how to prosecute cases, but they don’t even get the final say on how that law is interpreted. The courts do. It’s bad and definitely indicates collusion, but let’s please use the proper language to describe what’s happening.