A high-stakes trial in California is questioning whether President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to assist federal immigration officers was lawful.
The state government of California asserts that Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the military’s involvement in domestic affairs unless it is to suppress an armed rebellion.
This act represents a long-standing English legal principle restricting military involvement in local matters.
The timing of the trial’s opening remarks is significant, coinciding with President Trump’s announcement of a similar move in the District of Columbia on the same day, where he deployed the National Guard in response to a declared “crime emergency.”
In the courtroom in San Francisco, the trial has already begun revealing details about the collaboration between federal agents and military personnel in Los Angeles, prompting pointed inquiries from a federal judge.
California’s lawyers are defending the state’s authority over its National Guard, questioning military leaders and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) supervisor regarding the deployment strategies employed.
Testimony this week disclosed that an Army platoon was present at an FBI briefing about a manhunt related to an individual who had thrown rocks at federal vehicles, indicating close interaction between military troops and federal law enforcement.
This individual, Elpidio Reyna, was arrested in July and later indicted for assaulting law enforcement officers.
Under the command of U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, the military and federal law enforcement unified their efforts, with operational control over 4,000 state National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines.
This cooperation lasted only a short period during June before it led to Governor Gavin Newsom filing a lawsuit that brought about the current trial and reignited discussions surrounding federal overreach.
As the trial progresses, it holds potential implications at a critical time in U.S. history, especially as Trump orders a significant military presence on the streets of the District of Columbia following the attack on the Capitol.
In court, Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer questioned three witnesses regarding the National Guard’s involvement, all of whom maintained that the federalized state troops did not engage in law enforcement operations directly.
Ernesto Santacruz Jr., overseeing ICE operations in Los Angeles since April, testified that while troops remained on the sidelines, their presence acted as an intimidating show of force during arrests labeled as “criminals.”
Moreover, Major General Scott Sherman, who commands Task Force 51, reported that soldiers and Marines accompanied federal agents with armed rifles but insisted they never acted as a domestic police force.
He emphasized that their mission was to protect federal facilities and support federal law enforcement rather than engage in enforcement itself, which would breach the Posse Comitatus Act without congressional approval.
Judge Breyer appeared to challenge the reasoning behind deploying troops even under low-threat assessments, indicating concern over the potential for military resources to be used in domestic law enforcement situations.
During his questioning, the judge probed a hypothetical scenario regarding tax enforcement and whether military personnel could be dispatched to apprehend a protester without evidence of danger.
“Even if there is no threat, you can send the military out?” Breyer pressed during the proceedings, to which General Sherman affirmed that such deployment was possible under the given mission.
The court also heard from William Harrington, deputy chief of staff for Task Force 51, who indicated that military support for federal law enforcement operations continues.
Significantly, Harrington acknowledged that he could not envision any circumstances where a soldier could detain a civilian absent criminal activity without violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
His testimony is notably relevant, as he has taught legal parameters regarding military support to civil authorities at NORTHCOM.
Likewise, the Department of Justice found itself in a complicated position, trying to undermine Harrington’s expertise on military legal limits despite his previous position as a knowledgeable source.
Jody D. Lowenstein of the DOJ questioned Harrington’s credentials, seeking to highlight that his interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act lacked legal training.
Complications arose when the judge examined images depicting armed military personnel along with federal agents, expressing concerns about the increasingly indistinguishable nature of law enforcement in these joint operations.
At one point, Judge Breyer sought clarification from Sherman about the armed individuals’ affiliations with Task Force 51.
In closing remarks, Breyer showcased impatience with semantic distinctions made regarding ICE operations, compelling the ICE supervisor to clarify the definitions employed, which seemed to mask the operations performed.
As the trial continues, it raises profound considerations about the implications of federal troop deployment on American streets and the laws governing the intersection of military and law enforcement authorities.
image source from：timesofsandiego
