When violent protests erupt in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement, and the president sends in thousands of federal troops to keep the peace, you know the legal debates are about to get spicier than a jalapeño on a summer grill.

The core of this story is a bold prediction from Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who recently shared his insights on Newsmax. Dershowitz believes the U.S. Supreme Court won’t dare to challenge the president’s authority to deploy troops preventively in such chaotic times.

Let’s set the scene: Los Angeles is currently a tinderbox of unrest tied to immigration enforcement policies, with violent protests shaking the city. The administration has responded by dispatching roughly 2,000 National Guard troops, now backed by 700 Marines in a support role. It’s a hefty show of force, and not everyone’s thrilled about it.

Legal Precedent Backs Executive Power

Dershowitz, speaking on “The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” didn’t mince words about the legal landscape. “The Supreme Court of the United States will not second-guess the authority of the president of the United States in determining that it’s warranted to send in federal troops in a preventive manner,” he declared. Well, that’s a confident bet—let’s hope the justices aren’t feeling rebellious.

This isn’t just a gut feeling from Dershowitz, who’s also the author of “The Preventive State.” He points to historical examples like federal interventions in Hawaii post-Pearl Harbor and during the civil rights era as proof that presidents have wide discretion here. If history’s a guide, the judiciary tends to keep its nose out of these executive decisions.

Now, let’s talk about the squiggly line between lawful protest and criminal incitement that Dershowitz mentioned. “For the last thousand years, we’ve been trying to cover that line,” he said, calling it more of a “squiggle” that shifts with time. A squiggle, indeed—about as clear as a progressive’s definition of free speech these days.

Incitement Threshold Rarely Met

Dershowitz leaned on the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling to argue that the legal bar for incitement—requiring direct calls to immediate violence—isn’t often crossed. That means a lot of what we’re seeing in L.A. might be ugly, but it’s not necessarily illegal. Still, when fists start flying, First Amendment protections don’t cover everything.

“That’s not the issue as to whether or not the president can call out the National Guard. He’s doing it for preventive reasons,” Dershowitz emphasized. So, even if the protests don’t hit that incitement threshold, the president can still act if he smells trouble brewing.

And act he has, with a rationale that Dershowitz believes will hold up. “If he anticipates or thinks that more violence could happen, that would be enough,” the professor noted, adding that a reasonable basis is all it takes. Sounds like a low bar, but in a city on edge, maybe that’s the point.

Historical Failures Fuel Federal Action

Dershowitz also took a swipe at state governments for dropping the ball during past unrest. “They didn’t do it in the Rodney King case. They didn’t do it in the George Floyd case,” he said, justifying why federal intervention might be necessary now.

It’s a fair jab—when local leaders fail to keep order, should the feds just sit on their hands? Dershowitz argues it’s perfectly reasonable for the federal government to step in, much like it did during key moments in the 1950s and 1960s. Déjà vu, anyone?

Of course, there’s a caveat to this executive power. “If the president did it for improper reasons, for example, to call off an election… the Supreme Court would intervene,” Dershowitz clarified. Good to know there’s a line somewhere, even if it’s not in L.A. right now.

Court Unlikely to Interfere Now

Reflecting on past riots in Minneapolis, Oregon, and California after high-profile police incidents, Dershowitz suggested federal forces are often deployed to deter further chaos. It’s a pattern and one he thinks justifies the current troop presence. After all, better safe than sorry when violence isn’t just a theory.

Could the president be wrong in his approach? “He could be wrong,” Dershowitz admitted, noting that deploying troops might even worsen tensions after the fact—but no court will meddle while the chaos unfolds. That’s a gamble, but apparently, it’s one the judiciary won’t touch with a ten-foot pole.

So, where does this leave us? Dershowitz’s final prediction is crystal clear: “I think you can predict with relative assurance that the court’s not going to interfere with this.” If he’s right, the president’s got a green light to play peacekeeper, whether the woke crowd likes it or not—and let’s be honest, they probably won’t.