The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
About The "Incipient Crisis" In Little Rock
The aftermath of President Eisenhower sending in federal troops is not a model of success.
Today the Fourth Circuit denied the government's motion for an emergency stay in Garcia v. Noem. Here, I will not focus on the merits of the appeal. Rather, I want to highlight how Judge Wilkinson's opinion invokes a defining moment from the Civil Rights Era:
It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower's sage example. Putting his "personal opinions" aside, President Eisenhower honored his "inescapable" duty to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools "with all deliberate speed." Address by the President of the United States, Delivered from his Office at the White House 1-2 (Sept. 24, 1957); 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955). This great man expressed his unflagging belief that "[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts." Id. at 3. Indeed, in our late Executive's own words, "[u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result." Id. . . .
It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.
Judge Wilkinson treats the story of the Little Rock 9 in a very John-Roberts fashion: it tells a beautiful story about judicial supremacy where everyone did what what the federal court said, and everything worked out for the best. The history tells a different story.
The general story of the Little Rock Nine is known, but the legal posture is not. Randy and I discuss this history in the essay on Cooper v. Aaron in 100 Cases. Please watch the video to catch up. Eisenhower's speech is in there.
For those who do not like to watch videos, you can read the summary, though I think the video footage is compelling:
In 1955, the Little Rock, Arkansas, school board approved a plan for gradual integration. However, the so- called "massive resistance" spread to Arkansas. Citizens approved an amendment to the state constitution that opposed Brown and desegregation. Based on that amendment, a state court judge issued an injunction against members of the Little Rock school board. They were ordered to stop the implementation of the federal court's integration plan at Central High School.
In response, a federal district court issued an order to block the state court injunction. The situation escalated quickly. Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to prevent black students from entering Central High School. The National Guard blocked nine African- American students — known as the Little Rock Nine — from entering Central High School. Neither Faubus nor the National Guard were bound by the previous court order, which only applied to members of the school board. The situation then escalated further. A federal court enjoined the National Guard from blocking access for the African- American students. In response, the Little Rock Police Department replaced the National Guard. The police had not been included in the prior court order that bound the National Guard.
Two days later, in one of the most dramatic moments of the Civil Rights movement, President Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas. "Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts," he said. This storied division of U.S. Army paratroopers had fought its way across Europe in World War II and held its ground at the Battle of the Bulge. Now its troops were deployed to Little Rock, Arkansas where they escorted the Little Rock Nine into Central High School. Throughout the remainder of the year, the students attended class under the supervision of federal paratroopers.
Even after the federal intervention, the opposition to the desegregation plan did not subside. As a result, the district court granted the school board a thirty-month extension to integrate Central High School. The judge found that a delay was warranted, because the integration plan had caused "chaos, bedlam, and turmoil" in Little Rock. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment because the school board did not advance a sufficient basis to suspend the integration plan.
Shortly before the start of the semester, the Supreme Court convened for an emergency hearing. The question presented in Cooper v. Aaron was fairly narrow: Was the thirty- month extension given to the school board consistent with Brown's requirement to integrate with "all deliberate speed"? During oral arguments, the lawyer for the school board told the Court, "It was certainly not anticipated at the time [the] plan was formulated that the Governor of the State of Arkansas would call out troops to keep integration in the schools from taking place." Therefore, he claimed, a delay was warranted. The school board simply needed more time to deal with the unexpected circumstances. The Court was not persuaded by his argument. Chief Justice Earl Warren asked the attorney, "Can we defer a program of this kind merely because there are those elements in the community that will commit violence to prevent it from going into effect?" Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the delay was not permissible: "The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature." In an unprecedented showing of unanimity, each of the nine Justices signed the opinion.
This history teaches several lessons.
First, President Eisenhower dispatched the troops in 1957, about a year before the Court's decision in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). (My article on the myths of Cooper should be useful reading now.) The 101st Airborne did little to stop the massive resistance to integration. Indeed, the troops had to escort the black students to school every day to protect them from mobs. Eisenhower's action did little to stop the "anarchy."
Second, the federal district court judge in Little Rock thought it best not to integrate the high school due to the chaos, and instead favored a thirty-month pause. Appellate judges who were not close to the judge sought to dictate the path forward. Which level of the judiciary was acting with the right amount of judicial humility?
Third, even after Cooper v. Aaron, Central High School did not integrate. Rather, the school simply shut down. Indeed, throughout the South, schools, swimming pools, and other institutions were closed or transferred to private ownership to avoid federal court injunctions.
What lesson do we draw from the "incipient crisis" in Little Rock? In my view, courts lack the power to solve all problems. Even where there is jurisdiction and law on their side, judges run out of authority. Despite what Brown said, the Warren Court couldn't integrate schools. They barely tried after Cooper. That task fell to district court judges and federal civil rights enforcement. Decades later, consent decrees were still in force.
We need to take a sober assessment of the power of the courts. As I've said many times, a constitutional crisis is a coin with two sides: what are the courts doing, and what is the executive doing? Not all of the blame can be placed on one coordinate branch of government.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When did Boston's Pubic Screw-els De-Segregate?
They didn't -- they are more segregated now than then, but the bussing was in 1974 and 1975.
No, Blackman. All of the blame can be placed on one coordinate branch of government - namely the executive. If you can't even acknowledge that illegally sending someone who has committed no crime to an El Salvador slave labor camp without due process is a serious constitutional violation by Trump, then you aren't worthy of calling yourself a lawyer, much less a legal scholar. What on earth is even the point of having a constitution that protects civil liberties like due process if the President can just do it any way? Shame on you for supporting this authoritarian maneuver.
Illegal Alien from El Salvador returned to his home country, this is getting boring
yeah would be boring if the same court that found him deportable had not ALSO said-but not deportable to that country
and then he was....
and would still be boring if he was anyway by accident and then brought back to continue the case as is what normally happens
but what is unique is the violation and then the refusal to fix the order.
its much more than just due process-its the value of court orders at all.
Don't confuse Drackman with facts -- they make his brain hurt.
Then prosecute the individual involved. Investigate, call hearings, whatever it takes to find a suspect, then charge him, hold a trial, and if found guilty of kidnapping, sentence him to prison.
On the other hand, if you think courts have jurisdiction over foreign affairs, start that kind of a case.
But just screaming DUE PROCESS, when due process has been followed, and expecting judges to wave their magic gavels and weave spells, is not productive, and it ain't your precious Rule of Law.
Trump's DoJ will pursue charges? You're simply saying the solution is make something impossible happen.
No, the standard cure would be to hold someone in contempt of court. As seems to be happening in a different court. And could well happen here, without depending on Trump cultists to investigate other Trump cultists.
I'm saying it's the same prosecutorial discretion which courts allowed Obama to use in preventing deportation of millions of illegal immigrants with young children. Sauce for the gander and all that. Lawyers do like all this legal quibblery-pokery Rule of Law, right? Here it is.
Yes, and it doesn't get any less retarded the more times you say it. Prosecutorial discretion is a decision by the executive not to prosecute someone. That has absolutely no relevance to any issue in the Garcia case.
It is not at all the same.
Prosecutorial discretion goes in only one direction. It is discretion to choose NOT to prosecute people who HAVE committed crimes.
What the Trump administration did is unilaterally jail, without prosecuting or going through the court system, somebody who DID NOT commit crimes.
Garcia has certainly been accused of having been seen in a car in a store parking lot wearing a Chicago Bulls baseball cap which some genius ICE expert says is a sure-fire sign the wearer is an M-13 member if the wearer also looks Hispanic. But he has not been even accused of any actual gang-related crime.
In the other thread SGT says it's OK for Trump to send American citizens to foreign prison without process because Obama did a prosecutorial discretion he's still mad about.
He's both not thinking to clearly tonight, and he's an authoritarian ass.
Nope. I said if Obama could get court approval for not prosecuting millions of illegal immigrants because they had small children, well, here is your prosecutorial discretion from the other side. Trump does not have to prosecute whoever kidnapped Garcia.
I have said this many many times. That you still can't paraphrase this correctly is a testament to your TDS.
LTG's question was about *citizens*.
You were never much quality, but this manic shitposting tear of yours tonight is well below your bottom of the barrel standards.
Inconsistent; making half-refences no one else will understand; not reading the stuff you reply to.
Just a shower of nonsense. Go to bed.
Mute him. I did. Save yourself aggravation.
Setting aside whether that is an accurate characterization of what happened, the concluson is, of course, true. (Trump could also pardon any person involved.) I reiterate, however, that this observation has nothing whatsover to do with any issue in the Garcia case currently before the courts. That is a civil case, not a criminal one, and it is being brought against the government, not by the government.
He doesn’t have to regardless of what Obama did. A federal district court is perfectly capable of appointing a special prosecutor to prosecute people who defy its orders.
Don't be so alarmed. The next administration won't use these expansive new powers to target Jews or conservative media orgs or religion-based schools or judges or students from Israel, or...
hobie coming out as a Nazi.
Not surprising.
They actually won’t. Because liberal values are different and better. MAGA Right-wingers understand this internally. They know that liberal values will protect them in the event they lose power. So they can always push against them when in power because their own spells can never be used against them.
That's so cute.
It also happens to be accurate. Trump tried to illegally overturn an election result to illegally stay in power and he was ultimately saved by the liberal obsession with procedure and optics. If those values didn’t exist he would have been exiled or imprisoned immediately.
It's true, we don't like to go there. But I think, after four years of this shit, we may have to get a little trumpy
Predictable expressions of "No More Mr. Nice Guy!!!"
As if your side had been milquetoast and meek up to this point.
You need to give more credit to the ruthlessness of your own side.
But in their own minds, partisans see themselves as a bunch of too-pure-for-this-world romantics, always outmaneuvered by the evil of the other side. Time to get tough, grrr!
Such sentiments were also noticeable on the right, as well, and account for the willingness to back up Trump in the whole Garcia business - "grrr! we're fighting back this time! grrrr!"
It would be interesting if, in the future, we considered the targeting of Gaza tent camps as terrorism and started sending Jewish activist students to El Salvador without due process. I'll have long forgotten our conversation here, but I'll bet then you'll be mighty upset
Where is Sarcastro to lecture you about hypothetical outrages being the worst outrages?
I've said I support due process for Garcia, and he's probably a Bad Person, and I would support due process even for the hypothetical evil Zionists of your imagination.
"and he's probably a Bad Person"
Sigh...hypothetical
I had a discussion with another commenter about why I was defending a wife-beating gang-banger. I indicated that there's no Bad Person Exception to the Constitution.
If there were, who would have rights at all? Because the government thinks everyone who opposes them is a Bad Person.
The reason I said Garcia is probably a bad person is that they have testimony linking him to a gang, plus his wife saying he beat her. That's not hypothetical. But it's still wrong to send Garcia somewhere it's illegal to send him to, until there's been a due-process hearing to modify the relevant deportation order.
We're all bad people to varying degrees. I suspect we will be judged on how we treat each other
I suspect so.
Three points Margrave:
1. The big legal threats against Trump came not from Ds, but from federal grand juries.
2. The most damaging witnesses against Trump were an assortment of his formerly closest cronies, and lackeys, plus a sprinkling of insiders of good character, all Rs.
3. The most damaging evidence against Trump came right out of his own mouth, in public appearances, or right out of his type-type-type little fingers, on social media.
The Trump phenomenon is not a normal example of anything. To excuse it by accusations against Ds shows nothing but character deficiency of the would-be accuser.
A person of character would respond to what I actually said, not to straw men.
Here is what you said that I was responding to:
As if your side had been milquetoast and meek up to this point.
You need to give more credit to the ruthlessness of your own side.
But in their own minds, partisans see themselves as a bunch of too-pure-for-this-world romantics, always outmaneuvered by the evil of the other side. Time to get tough, grrr!
Such sentiments were also noticeable on the right, as well, and account for the willingness to back up Trump in the whole Garcia business - "grrr! we're fighting back this time! grrrr!"
I think my remark was responsive to that, and rebutted it.
It wasn't and didn't.
I said nothing about where the big legal threats against Trump came from or about Trump being normal. Nor did I seek to "excuse" anything bad which Trump did based on the sins of the Democrats.
Those are the things you "rebutted."
If you're commendably rejecting the usual "lawfare against Trump who is innocent of all wrongdoing!" that comprises so much of the VC comments, then perhaps you can provide examples of ruthlessness and things that are not milquetoast and meek.
This should be a useful link:
https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/sea-lion
So Margrave denies that he meant Trump but concedes he has no examples that aren't Trump.
But the Liberals aren't liberal -- they are actually Leftists.
"All of the blame can be placed on one coordinate branch of government - namely the executive."
The executive is certainly responsible for the initial injustice, but the judiciary isn't helping.
The courts should either explain why think they have the authority to order the executive to effectuate a prisoner's release from a foreign prison or stop trying to order it and admit that this is a remedy that the judiciary is unable to provide.
Because they said so.
Sounds a lot like lawlessness. What if the courts ordered the President to send a US citizen to a prison in El Salvador?
What lesson do we draw from the "incipient crisis" in Little Rock?
How about that there are a lot of racists in the US, and that it would be better if they didn't run the country?
Sleepy Joe (anyone catch his "Speech" yesterday when he reminisced about watching the "Colored Kids" get on the Bus?) hasn't been President for almost 3 months now.
His asking price for speaking gigs are selling like, like, like, MS13 Terrorists in El Salvador! Perhaps his beta soyboys on here can attend one of Buydem's gigs and cough up da bling bling 4 da Resistance™ coz, then report back to us how he babbled incoherently. But then that would require them being honest about Biden's neurocognitive impairment. Rots of ruck!
Trump is winning!!!
Joe Biden ‘having trouble booking gigs’ with $300K per speech asking price
https://nypost.com/2025/04/17/us-news/joe-biden-having-trouble-booking-gigs-with-300k-per-speech-asking-price/
How about you recognize the difference between policy wants and Rule of Law?
ETA: And throw in DEI and affirmative action as official racism while you're at it.
Well, we elected Obama, so that ship already sailed.
Obama is laughing his white ass off flying from luxurious property to another, and this for being an adjunct law instructor. Is this a great country or what? He could never pull that off in, um, China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, et al
So the answer is for Trump to activate the National Guard, confine it to barracks, separate the black soldiers from the white soldiers in the US Army, and send the white US troops into the schools that preach extermination of the Jews?
Is that what "never again" means?
yes but i still wonder what josh recommends SCOTUS do now in garcia?
And whether his opinion on that is guided by his own more detailed understanding of little rock or something else?
What needs to happen is that IF you can somehow get your child accepted to attend the office building in downtown Houston known as the South Texas School of Law (which, by the way, is only two blocks from one of only two strip clubs in America listed on a stock exchange), he/she will be taught how to interpret the law by the esteemed, 'leading national thinker' Josh Blackman. Then you'll have your answer
Why the hate for STSOL? Dan Blather went there and Madalyn Murray Ohare actually grad-jew-ma-ated, they've got an 80% pass rate for the Bar, surprised Ted Kennedy and Hunter didn't go there with its proximity to a Strip Club.
You know, Frankie, the sad part of it all is that what I said above is true, and you're taking your marching orders from a guy who works at a law school (and I was being charitable...the school occupies a few floors of the office building) that cannot even attract food trucks for lunch hour
yet here you are, soyboy, commenting on his articles. OTOH, I could be wrong about you. Perhaps you wrote a best-seller like JD Vance, made millions $$$ in spite of coming from poverty, married a beautiful woman, had beautiful kids, and became VP by age 40, as a Catholic convert quoting St Augustine of Hippo.
Your paid handlers are not sending us their best
soyboy
Oh hey someone from 4chan c. 2016.
What's with all the newbie shitposters today?
oh hey, the most maligned troll shitposter is acting like a soyboy.
NB: George Soros needs to send better trolls
An 80% pass rate speaks for itself -- and buildings don't matter, it could be in surplus Army tents because buildings don't teach.
Blackman, not getting into the merits of the case but writing a blog post about one thing so he can displace Volokh’s post from the top spot.
you are 100% correct Josh.
the solution to the current problem is that the voters have to want garcia back, but a majority of voters don't.
this reminds of the Justice Scalia example of the person who is convicted in the perfect trial, and exhaust all appeals, but is actually innocent, the remedy is the outrage from the people that would force the executive to issue a pardon.
its not crystal clear what a majority of voters think about this issue in particular there is no good solidly worded group of polls to rely on.
But just to understand then-you think any decision of the court should be subject to nullification by the other branches if a majority wants it?
If a majority of people dislike my voice and want me killed because of it:-and the executive is willing to-the courts should have no power to stop it?
there is no way, the administration is not doing polling on the issue.
if there were actually groundswell of support behind Mr. Garcia you can be sure he would be returned,
They are already preparing for the midterm's elections; there is no universe in which the administration is not doing polling on every issue.
The hell with eggs...gotta keep that power
interesting-but what if its just a majority of gop voters and they judge that that powers their base-but a majority of all voters would bring him to the US for further proceedings-
Polling all depends on how you ask the question.
"Should we bring a probable gang-banging wife-beater back to this country?" 70% no
"If a hearing officer has found that someone would face persecution in El Salvador and thus shouldn't be deported back there, should he be deported back anyway, without any due process to change the original order?" 70% no
Polling question to average American:
Knowing that violent crime has escalated in the past several years, the country is headed in the wrong direction, the American dream seems distant to far more Americans than ever, and raising a family in today's culture seems more difficult than ever, where does Abrego Garcia rank on your list of concerns?
Average Latino US citizen Answer:
¿ Quién cojones es Abrego Garcia? Que se vaya al chingao
again how you ask the question:
If there is a division between the courts and the president about what authority each has and the president may want to aggressively evade a court order about that: where does that rank on your priorities list?
If there is a division between the district courts and the president about what authority each has and district courts overstep their bounds and exercise powers that properly belong in another branch of government: where does that rank on your priorities list?
Elections have consequences, cupcake.
I am not sure I understand what the distinction is between "jurisdiction and law" being on the courts' side versus the courts having "authority." If jurisdiction and law are on the side of the courts, and the executive disobeys the courts, then the executive is in fact in the wrong and deserves the blame. This post seems to suggest that if courts tell the truth about what the law requires, then they are somehow partially responsible if a criminal administration refuses to comply.
Shhhh...
Hmmmm... National Guard, police, then the airborne division.
Seems to me the lesson here is all power flows from the barrel of a gun. Judicial orders are impotent without some infantry to enforce it.
Eisenhower had the biggest army. Had a Democrat been President, history would be different.
in 2025, who has the biggest army?
Is that the lesson I should draw?
DWB68 — It is not a lesson you can afford to ignore. It comes with caveats:
Contests of pure power, when they escalate, deliver unpredictable outcomes. No one with sense will pursue a pure power contest so long as more controllable alternatives promise hope.
Also, pure power contests are inherently destructive. Complete victories won by power amidst general destruction can be actual losers compared to what might have happened otherwise.
Finally, pure power contests can deliver durable disorganization, leaving only stasis and loss to grind on for years, decades, or even longer.
And segregation.
Don't forget Eisenhower pulled all the black soldiers from the troops before sending them in to force black children into the school.
Sort of like in Con Air; define irony.
Could someone tell Blackman to stop "helping"?
People have been. He just thinks he is more brilliant and special than everyone else.
Which, come to think of it, remind me of someone else . . . .
Not more brilliant, but I've been called the Puck of this forum. Whatever that means.
I didn’t mean you. I meant Trump.
Oh, that's boring.
It means you are a dense hard rubber object, suitable to be knocked around.
It means that I'm rubber and you're glue:
Your insults bounce off me and stick to you.
But at least your insult wasn't a wall of text as dense as yourself, so perhaps you're improving.
Way to see the good in someone you disagree with!
It's just further evidence of my vast humility.
Moved
Tendentious. I expected a rejoinder more puckish.
I finally looked up "tendentious," and Webster's definition said: "marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view: biased"
Which is true in the sense that I have a biased point of view that you are a jerkwad.
A status-building rejoinder, in some circles.
I just noticed your character-deficient straw-man activity higher up in the thread. Jerkwad is the *polite* term for you.
Now take a look at how unobservant you were when you started in with the name calling. You apparently forgot your own comment.
Let's focus on the fact that you falsely attributed straw-man positions to me on several points.
I'm not seeing the connection. The courts were ordering southern states to integrate schools. Eisenhower, for whatever his personal opinions were on the issue (which I think were rather mixed), didn't have a dog in the fight.
So him enforcing the court orders don't really have much connection to the instant matter. More like if the courts had ordered him to devote military resources to the Sputnik launch to see how he would have reacted.
Eisenhower was not of mixed opinion on court ordered integration. He thought it was a mistake. He thought it would deliver social disruption better avoided. He thought it far wiser to await improvement only after a change in the hearts and minds of the racists.
The mixed part of Eisenhower's opinion came from his all-but-exalted sense of duty a military officer owed to his nation, and to its political system. When those contrasting value sets were weighed in the balance, Eisenhower chose duty, and put aside his personal qualms without hesitation.
Right. In the first scenario, the courts are ordering a third party to do something that Ike was in the middle about as far as the underlying issue. Personally supported integration, but thought it best to wait a bit. But pretty meh either way. He sides with the courts.
In this scenario, the courts are ordering Trump himself to do something that he feels very strongly that he should not have to do.
I don't remotely see the parallel.
Trump doesn’t have a dog in this fight either, except for the pit bull he decided to bring in for no reason.
We can all learn something from a judge who knew his proper role in the constitutional system:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Freisler
I wonder what Josh's opinion will be when some future administration sends him to a black site outside the country with no due process and then defies court orders to return him. At that point, will he be wish that he hadn't helped establish the precedent that allowed for his indefinite detention or execution?
It’ll change like the wind.
Eisenhower was right. It wasn't like desegregation was slowly catching on across the south. Arkansas calling out the guard was an escalation. At that point saying 'pretty please' for a couple of years would just give the segregationists time to talk themselves into a bigger fight. Federalizing the guard and sending in the regular Army up front was laying four aces on the table before the segregationists put any more money on the table.
Good news guys. We don't have to worry about qualified immunity anymore because the government actors actually can't violate the law if they weren't personally a defendant in a previous action against the same plaintiff on the same issue about the same incident. Any other court opinion they aren't subject to.
Whenever someone favorably mentions Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), Professor Blackman responds like Pavlov's dog.
Are his next targets Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)?
US citizen with obvious US birth cert held by ICE
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/juan-carlos-lopez-gomez-ice-florida-b2735491.html
wait apparently not isolated incident: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-ice-immigration-detained-americans-congress-questions-unanswered
good thing a birth cert currently proves citizenship..........unless and until that changes.
Never thought I’d see the day when Josh Blackman was arguing against school desegregation.
I mean, for Blackman that's just a Thursday.
A bad ruling on 3 counts
Yes, sometimes the feds have to step in but we see where that lead to with Biden. Now they do whatever the hell they want and send all off to the Supreme Court (often several times) and feel good if 1 in 2 succeeds. If not, they say 'we wanted this but SCOTUS stopped us"
What security is a law based on kids playing with black dolls. It's a disgrace.
What stands of a state's unique law if feds can come in whenever?