In a recent ruling, a federal judge has mandated the Trump administration to produce a variety of documents, photographs, internal reports, and other materials related to the military’s involvement in Southern California. This decision marks a procedural victory for the state of California as it seeks to limit the deployment of thousands of troops under President Donald Trump’s control.
Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, based in San Francisco, issued an order for “expedited, limited discovery”. He authorized California’s legal team to depose key officials from the administration, signaling that he might evaluate issues surrounding the duration of California National Guard troops’ federal control.
The Department of Justice expressed opposition to this development, arguing that it had not been afforded the opportunity to respond adequately.
This ruling comes on the heels of a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which dealt a significant blow to the state of California. Last Thursday, a panel of the court overturned Judge Breyer’s temporary restraining order, which aimed to restore control of the troops to state leadership.
In a statement from the court, Judge Mark R. Bennett from Honolulu emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to defer to the president concerning claims of “rebellion” and the impact of civilian protests on immigration enforcement. He noted that the president possesses the authority to federalize the National Guard under circumstances where military assistance is deemed necessary for law enforcement.
This authority derives from a statute that permits the federalization of the National Guard when the president is unable to enforce U.S. laws using regular forces.
However, neither court has yet addressed one of California’s primary assertions: that the involvement of troops in immigration raids constitutes a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits military personnel from enforcing civilian laws.
Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, criticized the administration for what she perceives as an abuse of this post-Civil War law. According to Agarwal, the current actions of the National Guard contradict the intent of the PCA, as they support Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
“There isn’t a dispute that what the National Guard is doing right now is prohibited by the PCA — legally, it absolutely has to be,” Agarwal stated. She highlighted the problematic nature of military personnel accompanying ICE officers during community operations and raids.
In his earlier order on June 12, Judge Breyer characterized California’s claim regarding the PCA as “premature,” citing insufficient evidence to determine whether there had been a violation of this law. The 9th Circuit notably reached a similar conclusion.
“Although we assert that the President likely holds authority to federalize the National Guard, our decision does not delve into the nature of the activities that such forces may engage in,” Judge Bennett remarked. He clarified that the court did not express any opinion regarding California’s arguments concerning potential PCA violations.
Under the recent ruling, California is now equipped to gather evidence from the federal government and depose numerous relevant figures. This includes Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., the director of the ICE field office in Los Angeles, and Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell, who oversees operations for the Army department focused on homeland defense.
Most notably, the gathered evidence is expected to be made public unless otherwise directed, which is considered another boon for Californian interests according to Agarwal.
“As the facts are further evaluated in this case, it will likely become increasingly evident how tenuous the justification was for invoking the National Guard,” Agarwal commented.
In a briefing submitted to the court on Monday, the Trump administration articulated its stance, suggesting that the troops were performing protective roles rather than engaging in law enforcement activities. According to the Justice Department, there lacks sufficient evidence to support claims that the National Guard and Marines were involved in the execution of federal laws.
The federal government further asserted that, even if the troops were involved in law enforcement, it would not necessarily breach the Posse Comitatus Act, positing that the court’s authority over such claims is limited.
“Given the Ninth Circuit’s finding, it would be illogical to assert that, while the President can call up the National Guard when he is unable ‘with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’ the Guard, once federalized, is banned from ‘execut[ing] the laws,'” the Justice Department maintained.
As California enters a pivotal phase in this legal battle, Agarwal and other civil liberties defenders highlight the significance of the implications of military presence in civilian settings. “There’s this atmospheric Rubicon we have crossed when we say based on vandalism and people throwing things at cars, that can be justification for military roaming our streets,” she asserted. “There was more unrest when the Lakers won the Championship.”
image source from：latimes
