A federal appeals court recently took action to temporarily reinstate President Donald Trump’s authority over the California National Guard following a ruling that blocked his deployment of the forces in Los Angeles.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced that the Trump administration is allowed to use the National Guard while it deliberates on the case, scheduling a hearing for June 17.
This legal battle commenced after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that California state officials were likely to succeed in their challenge against the president’s decision to federalize the state’s National Guard in response to ongoing protests.
Judge Breyer ruled that Trump’s actions were illegal for exceeding his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment.
In his detailed 36-page decision, Breyer asserted, “He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”
The judge noted that Trump had bypassed Governor Gavin Newsom in calling the National Guard into federal service and failed to follow the required procedures set by Congress.
By noon Friday, Breyer’s decision placed a pause on Trump’s control, but the Justice Department quickly announced its appeal, prompting the Ninth Circuit’s intervention.
In a statement to the press prior to the appeals court’s decision, Newsom expressed relief, stating, “The National Guard will come back under my authority by noon tomorrow.”
He emphasized the day’s events as a significant moment for the U.S. Constitution and democracy, criticizing the president’s actions as an overreach of power.
The incident marks the first legal challenge to Trump’s decision to place over 4,000 members of the California National Guard under federal command and the deployment of 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement during immigration enforcement activities.
Protests erupted in response to the Trump administration’s immigration policies, which the president labeled a “form of rebellion against” the United States, using it as a justification for invoking federal powers under Title 10.
This decision has sparked further demonstrations in cities like Austin, Boston, and New York as tensions grow over the federal response to protests in California’s largest city.
In reaction to the unrest, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass imposed an 8 p.m. curfew for two consecutive evenings while the police reported more than 400 arrests stemming from the protests and related disturbances.
Breyer’s ruling specifically targeted National Guard members, suggesting that concerns regarding the Marines’ actions currently remain speculative.
During proceedings, the judge expressed discomfort with claims from Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, who argued that courts lack the authority to review presidential decisions under Title 10.
Breyer countered, stating, “How is that any different than what a monarchist does?” stressing the importance of limitations inherent within the U.S. Constitution.
Title 10 delineates three circumstances under which the National Guard can be federally deployed, including situations of invasion, rebellion, or failure to execute laws.
The standard requires presidential action to be executed through the state’s governor, contradicting the Justice Department’s stance that grants the president unilateral authority.
Breyer articulated his point, noting that if the government’s interpretation of the law held, it would fundamentally alter the structure legislated by Congress.
California officials argued that the use of federal troops under these circumstances equates to an overextension of executive power.
In the face of this, the Trump administration dismissed Newsom’s opposition as a politically motivated maneuver, asserting that the enforcement of federal law does not allow for a “rioters’ veto.”
The government highlighted that there is substantial contention around the president’s prerogative to counteract civil unrest with federal forces.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s reluctance to affirm adherence to judicial decisions during a Capitol Hill hearing raised additional questions about authority and intervention, framing concerns over judicial constraints on national security measures.
Military leadership has stated that the Marines deployed in Los Angeles are not authorized for law enforcement tasks, emphasizing their role in safeguarding federal property and personnel.
U.S. law limits the military’s involvement in domestic enforcement unless invoked through the Insurrection Act.
As of the latest updates, approximately 2,800 National Guardsmen and Marines were reportedly stationed under Task Force 51, emphasizing training focused on de-escalation and civilian safety.
The task force’s mission centers around protecting federal employees and facilities while accompanying ICE during enforcement missions without engaging in civilian law enforcement roles.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed that numerous targets exist for immigration enforcement, yet did not divulge the number of arrests made during this heightened military presence.
Reports indicate that only a fraction of the migrants arrested in Los Angeles had previous criminal records, raising concerns over the efficacy and consequences of the militarized approach to immigration enforcement.
This ongoing legal and social controversy highlights the tension between state rights and federal authority amidst rising unrest and civil rights debates surrounding immigration policies.
image source from：https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-troop-deployment-los-angeles-judge/
