In the third circumstance, if there is a threat of federal law being broken, the president could also deploy the military. Rambo said this section was used by Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy against Arkansas....
But note Ike's care in stating "not to enforce integration." He clearly relied on a USDC order (and a plea from the mayor).
Are not today's rioters "preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws" as the 1871 Force Act specified?
I would not be comfortable relying on the Force Act of 1871.
I would note that "todays rioters" are not a State government. The Federal Constitution appears to apply against State action, and not individual action. With Ike, the State had called up the National Guard to oppose a Federal court order.
Trump is exercising restraint. Even if he could get away with sending in troops, there would be very bad optics and litigation through election day.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/42nd-congress/session-1/c42s1ch22.pdf
Force Act of 20 April 1871, 17 Stat. 13
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep106629/
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 637-39 (1883)
It is however strenuously insisted that the legislation under consideration finds its warrant in the first and fifth sections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first section declares "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."The fifth section declares "The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this amendment."
It is perfectly clear from the language of the first section that its purpose also was to place a restraint upon the action of the states. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, it was held by the majority of the Court, speaking through MR. JUSTICE MILLER, that the object of the second clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was to protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and this was conceded by MR. JUSTICE FIELD, who expressed the views of the dissenting Justices in that case. In the same case the Court, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, said that "if the states do not conform their laws to its requirements, then by the fifth section of the article of amendment Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation."
The purpose and effect of the two sections of the Fourteenth Amendment above quoted were clearly defined by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY in the case of United States v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods 316, as follows: "It is a guaranty of protection against the acts of the state government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and legislature of the state, not a guaranty against the commission of individual offenses, and the power of Congress, whether express or implied, to legislate for the enforcement of such a guaranty does not extend to the passage of laws for the suppression of crime within the states. The enforcement of the guaranty does not require or authorize Congress to perform 'the duty that the guaranty itself supposes it to be the duty of the state to perform, and which it requires the state to perform."
When the case of United States v. Cruikshank came to this Court, the same view was taken here. The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion of the Court in that case, said: "The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or from denying to any person the equal protection of the laws, but this provision does not add anything to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the states upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the states, and it remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the states do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, and no more. The power of the national government is limited to this guaranty."
So, in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, it was declared by this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Strong, that "these provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment have reference to state action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals."
These authorities show conclusively that the legislation under consideration finds no warrant for its enactment in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The language of the amendment does not leave this subject in doubt. When the state has been guilty of no violation of its provisions; when it has not made or enforced any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; when no one of its departments has deprived any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; when, on the contrary, the laws of the state, as enacted by its legislative and construed by its judicial and administered by its executive departments recognize and protect the rights of all persons, the amendment imposes no duty and confers no power upon Congress.
- - - - - - - - - -
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep506263/
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993)
Scalia, J., Opinion of the Court. Jay Sekulow argued for the Plaintiff. Deputy Solicitor John G. Roberts argued for the United States as amicus.
Syllabus at 263:
Held: "The first clause of § 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics."
Opinion of the Court at 282:
Even, moreover, if the "hindrance"-clause claim did not fail for lack of class-based animus, it would still fail unless the "hindrance" clause applies to a private conspiracy aimed at rights that are constitutionally protected only against official (as opposed to private) encroachment.
I quite understand your point about bad optics and litigation for Trump.
Didn't seem to bother President Lyndon Johnson though when he sent troops to Washington, D.C. when rioters after the death of Martin Luther King outnumbered the DC police. Of course, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress at that time (and the press and the TV channels).
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11403
Executive Order 11403 by President of the United States
Providing for the restoration of law and order in the Washington Metropolitan Area
WHEREAS I have today issued Proclamation No. 3840, calling upon persons engaged in acts of violence and disorder in the Washington metropolitan area to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith; and
WHEREAS the conditions of domestic violence and disorder described therein continue, and the persons engaging in such acts of violence have not dispersed:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and by virtue of the authority vested in me as commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia by the Act of March 1, 1889, as amended (D.C. Code, Title 39), it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to disperse all persons engaged in the acts of violence described in the proclamation, to restore law and order, and to see that the property, personnel and functions of the Federal Government, of embassies of foreign governments, and of international organizations in the Washington metropolitan area are protected against violence or other interference.
SECTION 2. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as be may deem necessary.
SECTION 3. (a) The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed to call into the active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders. Units or members may be relieved subject to recall at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use units and members called or recalled into active military service of the United States pursuant to this section.
(b) In addition, in carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to exercise any of the powers vested in me by law as commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia, during such time as any units or members of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard of the District shall not have been called into the active military service of the United States.
SECTION 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to one or more of the Secretaries of the military Departments any of the authority conferred upon him by this order.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
The White House,
4:03 P.M. Friday, April 5, 1968.
On Friday, April 5, President Johnson dispatched 11,850 federal troops and 1,750 D.C. Army National Guardsmen to assist the overwhelmed D.C. police force.[15] Marines mounted machine guns on the steps of the Capitol and Army soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Regiment guarded the White House. The 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, North Carolina and 6th Cavalry Regiment from Fort Meade, Maryland were among the principal federal forces sent to the city. At one point, on April 5, rioting reached within two blocks of the White House before rioters retreated. The occupation of Washington was the largest of any American city since the Civil War.
Federal troops and National Guardsmen imposed a strict curfew, worked riot control, patrolled the streets, guarded looted stores, and provided aid to those who were displaced by the rioting. They continued to remain after the rioting had officially ceased to protect against a second riot and further damage.[22][7][8]