Social Work Policy Practice

Author: DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry

  • When Statutes Speak of Force: The Insurrection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2383, and the Fragile Line Between Order and Overreach

    In times of political unrest, statutory language becomes more than a legal framework—it becomes a reflection of power, vulnerability, and contested authority. Two federal statutes stand at the center of this tension: the Insurrection Act, reorganized in 1907 and codified as 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255, and 18 U.S.C. § 2383, which criminalizes rebellion or insurrection against the United States. Though distinct in purpose, these laws converge in their capacity to authorize force and define dissent.

    The Insurrection Act, first enacted in 1792 and amended through Reconstruction, was formally reorganized in 1907 to consolidate federal authority over domestic military deployment. It permits the President to use federal troops or state militias to suppress insurrection, enforce federal law, or protect constitutional rights when state governments are unable or unwilling to act. Its language is expansive:

    “The President may use the militia or the armed forces to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if it hinders the execution of U.S. laws” (10 U.S.C. § 252).

    “The President may act if insurrection or domestic violence deprives people of constitutional rights and state authorities cannot or will not protect those rights” (10 U.S.C. § 253).

    These provisions temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which ordinarily prohibits federal military involvement in civilian law enforcement. While the Insurrection Act requires a presidential proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse (10 U.S.C. § 254), it does not require judicial review or congressional approval before deployment. This lack of oversight has raised concerns among legal scholars and civil rights advocates, particularly when invoked in politically charged contexts (Nunn, 2025).

    Complementing this executive authority is 18 U.S.C. § 2383, a criminal statute that targets individuals who incite or participate in rebellion against U.S. authority:

    “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof… shall be fined… imprisoned… and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States” (18 U.S.C. § 2383, 1948).

    Unlike the Insurrection Act, which empowers the President to respond to unrest, § 2383 is prosecutorial in nature. It has been rarely used, in part because its application requires clear evidence of intent to overthrow or resist federal authority—not merely protest or civil disobedience. Prosecutors often rely instead on related statutes such as seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) or obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512), which offer more precise thresholds and are less vulnerable to First Amendment challenges (Levin, 2022).

    Recent threats to invoke the Insurrection Act—most notably by President Donald Trump in response to civil unrest in cities like Portland and Chicago—have reignited public scrutiny of both statutes. Governors and attorneys general responded with lawsuits and public statements, citing constitutional violations and the risk of federal overreach (Garrison, 2025; Pritzker, 2025; Woodward, 2025). These events underscore the urgent need for civic literacy and statutory clarity.

    As a social work macro practitioner specializing in policy practice and community engagement, I view these statutes as lenses through which we must examine the intersection of law, power, and public accountability. They invite critical questions: When does protection become suppression? When does authority become overreach? And how do we, as policy advocates, ensure that statutory language is not weaponized against the communities we serve?

    Citizens are not without recourse. Legal remedies include petitioning Congress for oversight and reform, filing suit in federal court to challenge unauthorized deployments, and seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court when constitutional rights are at stake. Public education and advocacy also play a vital role in demystifying these laws and resisting their misuse.

    In advocacy, clarity matters. So does vigilance. The Insurrection Act and 18 U.S.C. § 2383—reorganized and codified over a century ago—remain active instruments of governance. They remind us that law is not static. It is activated by context, shaped by power, and challenged by those who dare to speak truth to it.

    Intellectual Property Statement

    This original work was authored by DeMecia Wooten‑Irizarry, MSW, MPA, Doctor of Social Work Candidate (Policy Practice), Licensed Social Worker. All rights reserved. No portion of this content may be reproduced, republished, or distributed without express written permission from the author. Attribution must reflect the author’s full credentials and intent. This work reflects a policy practice and community engagement lens rooted in macro social work values and statutory interpretation.

    References

    Garrison, J. (2025, October 6). Trump says he would invoke the Insurrection Act ‘if it was necessary’. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/06/trump-invoke-insurrection-act-if-necessary/86555308007/

    Levin, D. (2022). Insurrection, protest, and the First Amendment: Legal thresholds and prosecutorial discretion. Georgetown Law Journal, 110(3), 601–634.

    Nunn, J. (2025, June 10). The Insurrection Act explained. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

    Pritzker, J. B. (2025, October 6). Trump is trying to cause chaos in American cities before invoking Insurrection Act. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-chicago-insurrection-act-jb-pritzker-b2840484.html

    U.S. Code. (1907). Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim

    U.S. Code. (1948). Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S.C. § 2383. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

    Woodward, A. (2025, October 6). Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act in Portland. MSN News. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-threatens-to-invoke-insurrection-act-in-portland/ar-AA1NYDCa

  • Escalation, Emergency Powers, and the Need for Congressional Safeguards

    How historical precedent and statutory limits should shape legislative oversight of domestic force and emergency authorities

    Historical precedent: The escalation of state power that first targets a defined group and then broadens repression has clear precedent in twentieth‑century Germany. Scholarly histories document how exclusionary laws, administrative measures, and policing practices removed civil liberties from Jewish populations and then expanded to political opponents and other vulnerable groups as authoritarian control merged (Shirer, 1960; Evans, 2003; Friedlander, 1997; Browning, 1992).

    Military and domestic law‑enforcement limits: Federal law generally prohibits routine use of the U.S. Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement (Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385); the Insurrection Act contains narrowly defined statutory exceptions permitting federal military action under specific conditions (Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255). State National Guard deployments are governed by state law when under gubernatorial control and change legal status when federalized.

    Limited legal bases for executive emergency responses: The President may declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act, which activates specified statutory authorities delegated by Congress and is subject to congressional review and termination procedures (National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.). Other statutory authorities relevant to extraordinary domestic actions include disaster and public‑health statutes, economic mobilization authorities, and homeland‑security and immigration statutes that authorize agency responses within defined limits (Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq.; Defense Production Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq.; Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.). Executive action remains subject to constitutional and judicial review, including limits described in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (343 U.S. 579 (1952)).

    Oversight imperatives: For any extraordinary domestic deployments or enforcement operations, oversight should verify the legal authority invoked; the factual predicate for invoking emergency or Insurrection Act exceptions; chain of command and control status (state versus federal); safeguards for civil liberties and non‑discrimination; and transparency measures and reporting provided to Congress and affected communities.

    References

    Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. § 4501 et seq. (1950).

    Evans, R. J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

    Friedlander, S. (1997). Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1933–1945. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255.

    National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (1976).

    Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

    Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121 et seq. (1988).

    Shirer, W. L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

    Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

  • Reclaiming the Record: Slavery, Constitutional Complicity, and the 21st-Century Struggle Against Neo-Jim Crow

    America’s founding myth celebrates liberty, but its historical reality is rooted in slavery, racial violence, and systemic exclusion. The revision of history—especially around slavery, the Constitution, and civil rights—is not just academic; it is a moral imperative. It determines whose stories are told, whose suffering is acknowledged, and whose dignity is restored.

    The Constitution’s Complicity in Slavery

    The U.S. Constitution, often revered as a symbol of freedom, was crafted with explicit protections for slavery. These were not accidental omissions—they were strategic concessions to slaveholding states. Article I, Section 2 (the Three-Fifths Compromise) counted enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for congressional representation, reinforcing their dehumanization. Article I, Section 9 delayed the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade until 1808, allowing the continued importation of enslaved Africans. Article IV, Section 2 (the Fugitive Slave Clause) required the return of escaped enslaved people, legitimizing human bondage across state lines. These clauses embedded white supremacy into the nation’s legal framework, ensuring that enslavers retained political and economic power (Finkelman, 2001).

    Historical Revisionism: Truth vs. Sanitization

    Efforts to revise American history have intensified in recent years. The 1619 Project, launched by The New York Times Magazine, reframed the national origin story by placing slavery and Black resistance at the center (Hannah-Jones, 2019). It argued that 1619—the year enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia—is a more honest founding date than 1776. In response, the Trump administration created the 1776 Commission, which promoted a sanitized version of U.S. history that downplayed slavery, systemic racism, and the contributions of Black Americans (Mockaitis, 2025). This revisionist effort sought to restore a mythic past, one that erases the trauma and resistance of marginalized communities. Even public spaces have become battlegrounds for historical truth. At Independence National Historic Park, efforts to remove exhibits acknowledging slavery reflect a broader attempt to obscure the Constitution’s role in upholding racial hierarchy (Mockaitis, 2025).

    From Emancipation to Civil Rights—and Beyond

    The abolition of slavery in 1865 did not dismantle the systems of racial control. Instead, they evolved. During Reconstruction (1865–1877), brief gains in Black political power were violently overturned by white supremacist backlash. The Jim Crow Era (1877–1954) followed, codifying legal segregation, voter suppression, and racial terror. The Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) brought landmark victories like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Civil Rights Act (1964), challenging institutional racism and expanding civil liberties. Yet even after these gains, mass incarceration, redlining, and economic exclusion emerged as new tools of racial control (Alexander, 2010). Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow (2010) argues that mass incarceration functions as a modern caste system, disproportionately targeting Black Americans through punitive drug laws, surveillance, and prison labor schemes that echo slavery’s coercive logic.

    Neo-Jim Crow in the 21st Century

    Today, the push toward a 21st-century Jim Crow is not cloaked in overt segregation but in policies and cultural shifts that suppress truth and reinforce racial hierarchy. Voter suppression laws in over 20 states disproportionately affect Black and Brown communities, especially in the South. These include ID requirements, purges of voter rolls, and restrictions on early voting (Brennan Center for Justice, 2021). Educational gag orders in more than 35 states restrict the teaching of racism, slavery, and systemic inequality. These policies mirror historical censorship and aim to erase the trauma of marginalized communities (Mockaitis, 2025). Meanwhile, the prison system continues to disproportionately target Black Americans, with prison labor functioning as a modern form of coerced labor (Alexander, 2010). These trends reflect a backlash against racial justice movements and a desire to restore racial hierarchies under new guises. They are not relics of the past—they are reinventions of old systems, adapted to modern legal and cultural frameworks.

    Why This Matters

    Historical revisionism, when rooted in truth and justice, is not distortion—it is repair. It is a principled act of reclaiming erased narratives, confronting systemic harm, and honoring the resistance of those who fought—and continue to fight—for dignity. To confront the resurgence of neo-Jim Crow, we must tell the full story. We must name the Constitution’s complicity, honor the resistance of enslaved and oppressed peoples, and reject sanitized myths that obscure systemic harm. This is not merely a debate over curriculum—it is a struggle over memory, power, and justice.

    References 

    Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

    Brennan Center for Justice. (2021). Voting laws roundup. https://www.brennancenter.org

    Finkelman, P. (2001). Slavery and the founders: Race and liberty in the age of Jefferson. M.E. Sharpe.

    Hannah-Jones, N. (2019). The 1619 Project. The New York Times Magazine.

    Mockaitis, T. (2025, August 15). Trump’s Orwellian revisionist history rewrites America’s reality. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/5453023-trump-rewriting-american-history

  • The Supreme Court’s Emergency Docket Is Quietly Rewriting the Separation of Powers

    By DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry

    As a public administrator and licensed social worker, I write with deep concern about the Supreme Court’s recent decision permitting the President to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. This action, issued via the emergency docket, quietly dismantles Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)—a precedent that for ninety years affirmed Congress’s authority to insulate independent agencies from partisan control.

    The Federal Trade Commission was never intended to serve the political agenda of any administration. Its bipartisan structure is a constitutional safeguard, designed to protect the public interest through regulatory independence. By allowing the President to unilaterally dismiss a sitting commissioner, the Court has not merely paused a lower court’s ruling—it has endorsed a doctrine that threatens the architecture of democratic governance.

    This decision cannot be divorced from broader ideological currents. It aligns with the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership, a policy blueprint aimed at consolidating executive power and dismantling the administrative state. That doctrine is no longer aspirational—it is being operationalized through judicial appointments and jurisprudential shifts. Many of the justices now reshaping constitutional precedent were selected from Heritage-approved lists, chosen for their alignment with a belief system that rejects regulatory insulation and favors unitary executive control.

    The emergency docket, once reserved for urgent and time-sensitive relief, has become a mechanism for constitutional transformation. By bypassing full briefing, oral argument, and public transparency, the Court accelerates outcomes that erode checks and balances without the scrutiny such decisions demand. This procedural shift is not neutral—it is ideological.

    Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in Slaughter v. United States (2025) warns that the majority’s posture “transfers government authority from Congress to the President, and thus reshapes the Nation’s separation of powers.” That transfer is not theoretical. It is active, and it is destabilizing. When the Court abandons its own precedent to serve a partisan vision of governance, it ceases to function as a guardian of law and becomes complicit in its erosion.

    This is not about one commissioner. It is about whether independent agencies will continue to serve as constitutional guardrails—or be repurposed as instruments of executive will. It is about whether Congress will reclaim its oversight role, or allow judicial reinterpretation to hollow out its authority.

    As a doctoral candidate in social work policy practice and a trauma-informed policy advocate, I view this moment as a constitutional inflection point. My work centers survivor dignity, historical precedent, and public accountability. I approach governance through a systems lens—one that recognizes how legal decisions reverberate through institutions and communities, especially those already marginalized by structural inequity.

    The Court’s decision invites a future where regulatory bodies are politicized, precedent is disposable, and constitutional boundaries are redrawn without public consent. That future is not inevitable—but resisting it requires clarity, vigilance, and principled alarm.

    Congressional oversight is not a formality. It is a constitutional obligation. If Congress will not defend its own authority, and the Court will not defend its own precedent, then it falls to the public—and to those of us trained in law, policy, and care—to sound the alarm.

    DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry is a public administrator, licensed social worker, and doctoral candidate in social work policy practice. Her work centers trauma-informed, survivor-focused policy reform and constitutional accountability.

  • The Art of Connection

    The Art of Connection

    Welcome to WordPress! This is a sample post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey. To add more content here, click the small plus icon at the top left corner. There, you will find an existing selection of WordPress blocks and patterns, something to suit your every need for content creation. And don’t forget to check out the List View: click the icon a few spots to the right of the plus icon and you’ll get a tidy, easy-to-view list of the blocks and patterns in your post.

  • Beyond the Obstacle

    Beyond the Obstacle

    Welcome to WordPress! This is a sample post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey. To add more content here, click the small plus icon at the top left corner. There, you will find an existing selection of WordPress blocks and patterns, something to suit your every need for content creation. And don’t forget to check out the List View: click the icon a few spots to the right of the plus icon and you’ll get a tidy, easy-to-view list of the blocks and patterns in your post.

  • Growth Unlocked

    Growth Unlocked

    Welcome to WordPress! This is a sample post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey. To add more content here, click the small plus icon at the top left corner. There, you will find an existing selection of WordPress blocks and patterns, something to suit your every need for content creation. And don’t forget to check out the List View: click the icon a few spots to the right of the plus icon and you’ll get a tidy, easy-to-view list of the blocks and patterns in your post.

  • Collaboration Magic

    Collaboration Magic

    Welcome to WordPress! This is a sample post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey. To add more content here, click the small plus icon at the top left corner. There, you will find an existing selection of WordPress blocks and patterns, something to suit your every need for content creation. And don’t forget to check out the List View: click the icon a few spots to the right of the plus icon and you’ll get a tidy, easy-to-view list of the blocks and patterns in your post.

  • Teamwork Triumphs

    Teamwork Triumphs

    Welcome to WordPress! This is a sample post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey. To add more content here, click the small plus icon at the top left corner. There, you will find an existing selection of WordPress blocks and patterns, something to suit your every need for content creation. And don’t forget to check out the List View: click the icon a few spots to the right of the plus icon and you’ll get a tidy, easy-to-view list of the blocks and patterns in your post.

  • Adaptive Advantage

    Adaptive Advantage

    Welcome to WordPress! This is a sample post. Edit or delete it to take the first step in your blogging journey. To add more content here, click the small plus icon at the top left corner. There, you will find an existing selection of WordPress blocks and patterns, something to suit your every need for content creation. And don’t forget to check out the List View: click the icon a few spots to the right of the plus icon and you’ll get a tidy, easy-to-view list of the blocks and patterns in your post.