A federal judge in Minnesota just called out the Department of War for ignoring its own regulations after it used an active-duty Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer to prosecute a civilian.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins ruled that while the case can continue, the move “runs afoul” of established War Department policy.

Elkins’ statement highlights growing concern that the military’s role is creeping far beyond what is legally and ethically acceptable.

“Department of War regulations recognize that having military lawyers prosecute civilians in cases that lack a military nexus would be ill-advised,” she wrote.

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

Despite the violation, Elkins emphasized that she doesn’t have the authority to strike down the appointment made by the Justice Department.

This case brings the spotlight squarely onto an increasingly disturbing trend—the militarization of domestic law enforcement and even courtrooms. Several former JAG officers interviewed describe a breakdown of clear lines between military and civilian authority.

What once protected Americans from military intrusion in civilian life now seems to be up for reinterpretation.

The case centers on Paul Ervin Johnson, a Minnesota man accused of pepper-spraying a Customs and Border Protection officer during President Donald Trump’s migrant enforcement actions earlier this year.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

While the Biden-era Justice Department contends it acted within its rights to appoint an Army lawyer, critics argue this is a dangerous precedent.

Zachary West, a former Air Force JAG and national security counsel with Protect Democracy, said plainly, “The government is violating its own binding regulations by using military lawyers to prosecute ordinary civilian cases.”

West helped field an amicus brief from 11 ex-JAG officers challenging what they describe as clear noncompliance with federal limits on military involvement in civilian matters.

The legal backbone of their argument is the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from enforcing domestic laws.

Judge Elkins acknowledged that Congress has carved out rare exceptions, but agreed the War Department’s internal rules clearly restrict JAG officers to prosecuting cases with direct Army interest. She noted, “It is undisputed that the Army has no interest in the prosecution of Mr. Johnson.”

Incredibly, Elkins also called out the government’s cavalier attitude toward its own rules. “When the Court directly asked the Government about the regulations, the Government opined that the regulations do not matter,” she wrote. That dismissiveness captures what many in the military community see as unchecked bureaucratic arrogance.

Rachel VanLandingham, a former JAG turned law professor, explained that while the military can self-limit its authority through its own regulations, a civilian court typically can’t enforce those limits.

“She has no authority to issue some kind of injunction,” VanLandingham said, adding that the practice still presents a “moral dissonance” and continues the “creeping militarization of law enforcement.”

That moral conflict isn’t new. Under both political parties, elements of the federal bureaucracy have blurred lines that once kept warfighters focused on combat while leaving policing to civilian law enforcement.

Veterans of the legal corps now see JAGs dispatched in growing numbers to handle civilian prosecutions in cities like Memphis, Washington, and Minneapolis. This new practice, they argue, goes far beyond typical joint work involving military-related crimes.

Army spokesman Christopher Surridge defended the move by saying JAG officers in these roles acquire “substantial courtroom and litigation experience,” which he insists ultimately strengthens the Army’s own justice corps.

But that defense doesn’t address the basic fact that the rules were put in place precisely to keep those experiences confined to military-interest cases, not garden-variety civilian prosecutions.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth has been clear since taking the helm that he wants the JAG corps laser-focused on supporting the fight—not bogged down in civilian backlogs.

In a video statement from March, Hegseth announced a sweeping review to “execute a ruthless, no excuses inventory” to refocus manpower where it counts most. “Right now, military lawyers are sometimes stuck doing civilian sidework that belongs to general counsels instead,” he said. “That ends today.”

For conservatives who value strong but properly bounded institutions, this case highlights a deeper cultural rot inside the bureaucracy. The War Department should never need a federal judge to remind it to follow its own rulebook.

The use of soldiers in legal uniforms to do the Justice Department’s domestic dirty work marks a slide toward the kind of centralized control the Founders feared.

Many veterans will tell you that the military works best when it sticks to fighting real enemies abroad, not prosecuting civilians at home.

The courtroom should not be another theater of operations for the Army, and the Constitution doesn’t take a back seat to bureaucratic convenience.

If the ruling in Minnesota sparks a long-overdue reckoning, it will be a step back toward sanity and discipline inside the War Department.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.