An appeals court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to maintain control over the National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles amidst protests concerning immigration policies.
This decision reverses a lower court’s ruling which concluded that Trump had exceeded his legal authority by activating the military personnel without the consent of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Notably, this deployment marks the first instance since 1965 that a president has mobilized state National Guard forces without the governor’s approval.
The ruling was made by a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously found that the Trump administration had sufficient legal grounds for the federalization of troops based on threats of violence during the protests.
The panel highlighted incidents where protesters had attacked federal officers, throwing objects and inflicting damage on federal properties, thereby justifying the federal interest in deploying the National Guard.
The court stated, “The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers.
Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building.
And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows.
The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”
Additionally, the court determined that even if the administration failed to notify Gov. Newsom prior to federalizing the National Guard, he had no authority to block the president’s orders.
President Trump celebrated the appeals court’s decision on his Truth Social platform, describing it as a “BIG WIN.”
He asserted that his administration would ensure the protection of U.S. cities and residents if local police were unable to fulfill their duties.
In contrast, Governor Newsom expressed his disappointment regarding the court’s ruling, yet he acknowledged that the court had dismissed Trump’s assertion of absolute power over the National Guard without judicial oversight.
“The President is not a king and is not above the law.
We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,” Newsom remarked in his statement.
This legal battle could set a significant precedent on presidential authority concerning the deployment of military forces within the United States, particularly following Trump’s directives to focus on deportations in predominantly Democratic-run cities.
Trump, representing the Republican party, argued that the presence of troops was necessary for restoring order, while Newsom, a Democrat, criticized the federal intervention as exacerbating tensions and undermining local governance.
The protests have seemingly begun to diminish in intensity since the National Guard was deployed.
In a separate context, around 200 Marines also arrived in Los Angeles to safeguard federal properties and personnel amidst these tense situations.
The appeals court’s ruling stemmed from a lawsuit initiated by Newsom against Trump’s commands.
In an earlier phase, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled in favor of Newsom, asserting that Trump’s actions surpassed his lawful authority, which is limited to scenarios involving “rebellion or danger of a rebellion.”
Judge Breyer, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, indicated that the protests did not reach the threshold of ‘rebellion.’
The Trump administration contended that the courts should refrain from questioning the president’s decisions, successfully securing a temporary suspension from the appeals court to uphold federal control over the California National Guard until the lawsuit proceeds.
As it stands, the National Guard will remain under federal jurisdiction while the legal proceedings work their way through the court system.
image source from：pbs
