Protests in Los Angeles have entered their fourth day in response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies.
Following the nationwide discontent, President Donald Trump described the demonstrators as ‘violent, insurrectionist mobs’ and took the controversial step of deploying the National Guard to the city, despite the objections voiced by California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
This decision has raised a myriad of legal questions regarding the extent of Trump’s authority to quell protests linked to his immigration enforcement measures.
During an interview with ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott, Trump was asked whether he was ready to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to control the protests.
The Insurrection Act, which has not been invoked since the riots in Los Angeles in 1992, allows the President to deploy federal troops in scenarios of insurrection.
When questioned about the situation in Los Angeles, Trump indicated, ‘Depends on whether or not there is an insurrection.’
However, he quickly added that while he did not believe an insurrection was taking place, there are ‘violent people’ that his administration will not tolerate.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump referred to the protesters as ‘paid insurrectionists,’ intensifying the rhetoric surrounding the demonstrations.
The President also hinted at the possibility of sending active-duty Marines to assist in Los Angeles, following a statement from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, confirming that 700 Marines from Twentynine Palms, California, were ready to be deployed.
Pressed on the criteria for sending active-duty Marines, Trump stated, ‘The bar is what I think is.’
The Insurrection Act, dating back 218 years to President Thomas Jefferson, permits federal intervention in state matters under specific circumstances.
Typically, the military is restricted from intervening in civilian law enforcement due to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which requires congressional approval or constitutional authorization for military involvement.
The Insurrection Act serves as a critical exception, enabling the President to deploy military force should unrest threaten state governance or hinder law enforcement.
Legal experts have criticized the Insurrection Act’s vague language, calling for its reform to introduce greater oversight on presidential power.
Historically, the Act has been invoked by various Presidents during significant crises, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, in efforts to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court’s historic 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
The most recent invocation occurred in 1992 when President George H.W. Bush sent the National Guard to Los Angeles amid civil unrest following the acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King.
If President Trump chooses to invoke the Insurrection Act, it would likely be done against Governor Newsom’s wishes, a move not seen since the 1960s under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
In contrast to the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act, Trump activated the National Guard through Title 10 of the U.S. Code instead.
This provision allows the President to mobilize federal service members under threats of rebellion against U.S. authority.
According to a presidential memorandum outlining the deployment, Trump stated the National Guard was being sent to ‘temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property.’
This decision was reportedly based on current threat assessments related to ongoing protests.
As per the memorandum, up to 2,000 National Guard troops could be called for 60 days or at the discretion of Hegseth.
Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops mobilized under Title 10 generally cannot directly engage in law enforcement duties unless the Insurrection Act is invoked or other exceptions apply.
In response to the National Guard’s deployment, Governor Newsom announced that the state would pursue legal action against the Trump administration.
On social media, Newsom stated, ‘He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard.’
The Governor expressed concerns that Trump’s order would enable him to deploy the National Guard in other states as well, stating, ‘We’re suing him.’
As tensions in Los Angeles continue to escalate, the legal ramifications surrounding the federal response to the protests are likely to unfold in the days ahead.
As the city grapples with the protests, the implications of federal intervention against the backdrop of state sovereignty remain a point of contention and critical legal scrutiny.
image source from：https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/insurrection-act-trump-quell-la-protests/story?id=122650690
