The legal conflict surrounding President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in California progressed in a federal appeals court on Tuesday.
During a remote hearing, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed California’s legal challenge against the federalization of the state’s National Guard amid protests over immigration policies in the Los Angeles area.
The hour-long session featured a three-judge panel, including two judges nominated by Trump and one by President Joe Biden.
Brett Shumate, counsel for the federal government, urged the appeals court to stay the lower court’s order, which aimed to halt the deployment and restore control of the National Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom, who did not approve of the troop activation.
Shumate emphasized that the lower court’s ruling is extraordinary, asserting that it interferes with the president’s authority as commander-in-chief and disrupts the military chain of command.
He argued that President Trump acted within his rights to call up the National Guard due to his determination that the riots in Los Angeles were tantamount to rebellion, which hindered his ability to enforce federal laws.
Shumate contended, “The district court improperly second-guessed the president’s judgment about the need to call up the guard to protect federal property and personnel from mob violence in Los Angeles.”
Furthermore, he claimed that Trump’s powers as commander-in-chief are “unreviewable” and that he can deploy troops as he finds necessary.
Conversely, Samuel Harbourt, representing the state of California and Governor Newsom, requested the court to dismiss the federal government’s appeal, labeling the federalization of the National Guard as an unprecedented and unlawful executive action.
Harbourt acknowledged recent unrest in Los Angeles, including incidents of violence directed at local law enforcement, but emphasized that the state had condemned such acts and responded adequately without federal intervention.
He suggested that the federal government failed to explore alternative, less extreme responses than deploying the National Guard and militarizing the situation.
Harbourt stressed that the diversion of thousands of National Guardsmen for a deployment lasting up to 60 days detracted from essential duties like wildfire preparedness and drug interdiction, infringing upon state sovereignty and escalating tensions in Los Angeles.
When questioned on why the court should have jurisdiction over the president’s troop deployment decisions, Harbourt attempted to reference prior cases; however, the judges indicated those cases were not applicable in this situation.
The judges also expressed skepticism regarding Harbourt’s claim that Congress mandates consultation with governors before deploying the National Guard.
No ruling was issued by the judges following Tuesday’s hearing, nor was there any indication of when a decision might be made. They did acknowledge a subsequent hearing scheduled by the lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, for Friday.
To justify sending thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, President Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which permits federal troop deployment in response to a rebellion or threat thereof against federal authority.
In his official order, Trump stated that the troops would protect federal property and personnel executing their duties.
Previously, Judge Breyer labeled Trump’s actions as illegal, stating, “At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not.”
Breyer emphasized that Trump’s actions exceeded his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, demanding the immediate return of the California National Guard to the state.
His order did not restrict Trump’s deployment of Marines, who were also dispatched to Los Angeles.
In a press conference following the district court’s ruling, Newsom expressed his satisfaction, asserting his commitment to returning the National Guard to its prior responsibilities.
In their appeal, administration lawyers described the lower court’s order as unprecedented and as an extraordinary infringement on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.
The current deployment encompasses approximately 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines ordered to the Los Angeles area following protests spurred by immigration enforcement policies.
California officials claim that President Trump exacerbated the protests by mobilizing the military when it was unwarranted.
Additionally, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who had previously imposed a curfew in downtown Los Angeles amid the demonstrations, announced on Tuesday that the curfew would be lifted.
In her statement, Bass noted, “The curfew, coupled with ongoing crime prevention efforts, have been largely successful in protecting stores, restaurants, businesses and residential communities from bad actors who do not care about the immigrant community.”
She emphasized that she was prepared to reinstate the curfew if necessary, underscoring her commitment to ensuring safety, stability, and support in downtown neighborhoods.
image source from：abcnews
