In a significant legal controversy, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has postponed issuing additional rulings regarding the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, amidst accusations of violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
The law prohibits military personnel from engaging in civilian law enforcement activities on U.S. soil.
This development follows a recent decision by the 9th Circuit appellate panel, which affirmed President Donald Trump’s authority to retain control of National Guard troops he dispatched in response to protests linked to immigration enforcement.
California Governor Gavin Newsom’s argument claims that there is an imminent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act due to the federal troops’ presence, but Judge Breyer opted to defer his consideration of these allegations for further briefings from both parties by noon on Monday.
In a demonstration of support for the troops, Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran, traveled to Los Angeles and met with members of the military, including U.S. Marines defending federal installations.
Vance stated that the court recognized Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops as legitimate, suggesting that the president would be prepared to take similar actions again if necessary.
“The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town, whether big or small,” Vance told journalists.
“If you enforce your laws and protect federal law enforcement, we’re not going to send in the National Guard because it’s unnecessary.”
The backdrop for this ongoing situation includes a series of demonstrations, which have calmed following instances of violence between protesters and police, as well as incidents of vandalism and break-ins that occurred after immigration raids in Southern California earlier this month.
Despite the tensions, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters have taken to the streets in Los Angeles since June 8.
Notably, National Guard members have been accompanying federal agents during certain immigration enforcement operations, with reports indicating that Marines briefly detained a civilian on the first day of their deployment to safeguard federal buildings—a notable occurrence marking the first instance of federal troops detaining a civilian under the current deployment order in Los Angeles.
Earlier findings by Judge Breyer indicated that President Trump’s action to activate National Guard troops contradicted legal limitations, as the president’s authority to control state National Guard troops is generally confined to contexts described as ‘rebellion’ or when there is a significant threat to the government.
Breyer articulated that the protests in Los Angeles do not meet the conventional threshold of ‘rebellion’.
The dynamics of this legal case have become increasingly complex as California sought a preliminary injunction to restore Governor Newsom’s control over the National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles, especially as the protests seem to have diminished.
Trump’s administration defends the necessity of troop deployment in restoring order, while Newsom argues that the presence of the National Guard exacerbates local tensions, undermines authority, and squanders public resources.
Consequently, amidst the ongoing legal discourse, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a downtown curfew that had initially been imposed due to vandalism and confrontations with law enforcement.
The return to a more tranquil environment may signal a shift in community engagement following weeks filled with unrest.
Despite ongoing tensions and the protests resulting in varying responses from law enforcement, Vance’s tour of a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center reflects the administration’s commitment to managing the situation carefully.
Even as some demonstrations remain, the concern echoes from Governor Newsom that California will not be the last state witnessing military presence if President Trump’s current strategies continue.
As this unprecedented deployment unfolds, President Trump federalized California National Guard members under Title 10, which allows the president to mobilize state troops during significant national emergencies, including invasions or rebelling against federal authority.
This marks the first instance of a president federally deploying a state’s National Guard without the governor’s consent since the sending of troops to protect marchers during the Civil Rights Movement in 1965.
While Judge Breyer has previously ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in this instance, the appellate court has provided a stopgap, maintaining the federal control of National Guard troops as the lawsuit progresses.
Trump celebrated the appellate ruling through a social media post, calling it a significant victory and hinting at potential future deployments.
The legal landscape surrounding the Posse Comitatus Act and the control of National Guard troops in civilian contexts continues to evolve as events unfold in Los Angeles.
image source from：fortune
