Ex-Military Lawyers Denounce Assignments to US Attorney Offices

A group of former military lawyers is warning against the Trump administration’s use of judge advocates to staff US attorneys’ offices, arguing the move runs afoul of federal law limiting involvement in civilian law enforcement.

Assignments of military lawyers to work on cases that have no military nexus “impermissibly inserts the military into civilian law enforcement’s core functions,” the group of 11 former US judge advocate officers wrote in an amicus brief submitted Tuesday in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The group filed the brief in support of a criminal defendant’s motion to strike from his case a military lawyer detailed to the US attorney’s office in Minnesota. The Justice Department added Michael Hakes-Rodriguez, a judge advocate for the US Army, as the lead prosecutor in the case in early February.

DOJ is drawing on military lawyers to support US attorneys’ offices and immigration courts after a wave of resignations and firings since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term. US attorneys’ offices in Minnesota, Tennessee, and other states have tapped military lawyers to help address mounting workloads, including a flood of habeas cases from detained immigrants.

The case in Minnesota involves an individual charged with assaulting federal agents and resisting arrest in a January incident during the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants without legal status in Minnesota.

The former military officers argue that Hakes-Rodriguez is barred from working on the case under the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of armed military forces for civilian law enforcement.

The former military lawyers who signed onto the brief Tuesday include individuals who were detailed to DOJ to serve as special assistant US attorneys for crimes committed by civilians on military installations and other cases with military connections.

The case in which Hakes-Rodriguez is serving as lead prosecutor, however, has no evident military service connection, the former officers wrote.

“Deploying JAGs to prosecute civilians in federal court in cases without a substantial military nexus erodes vital democratic norms, harms military readiness, and impermissibly inserts the military into civilian law enforcement’s core functions,” the group wrote.

The former military lawyers are represented by attorneys at the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy Project.

Legal scholars and former military lawyers have signaled concern with military members serving in civilian capacities at immigration courts and US attorneys’ offices, citing potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.

An October 2025 advisory legal opinion from DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel asserted the department’s request to detail up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges and 20 attorneys to serve as special assistant US attorneys in the District of Columbia didn’t violate Posse Comitatus.

Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote that the details would comply with federal law because they’re working on a full-time basis in a civilian capacity, under the supervision of civilian DOJ supervisors.

The Minnesota US attorney’s office argued in a March 3 filing that Hakes-Rodriguez is lawfully serving on the case, noting that “Congress has specifically authorized the detailing of military lawyers for use as SAUSA to prosecute civilians for criminal violation.”

Military lawyers detailed to the Minnesota US attorney’s office include Matthew Isihara, whom a federal judge held in civil contempt in February over his handling of litigation challenging an immigrant’s continued detention.

Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the US District Court for the District of Minnesota resolved the contempt finding two days later but voiced frustration with the US attorney’s office saying it lacked enough resources to comply with court orders in immigration cases.

The case is USA v. Johnson, D. Minn., No. 0:26-mj-00081, 3/10/26.