A federal judge raised concerns on Friday regarding the Trump administration’s military deployment in Los Angeles, questioning whether it violates the Posse Comitatus Act. This act prohibits troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil.
The inquiry follows California’s challenge against President Donald Trump’s deployment of troops in response to anti-ICE protests in the city. The case recently returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco after an appeals court sided with the Trump administration, allowing him to maintain control over National Guard troops intended to quell riots.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has not yet made a ruling but has requested both parties to submit briefings by noon on Monday regarding the allegations of violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, expressed in his complaint that the possibility of violating the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already taking place. However, Judge Breyer paused deliberation on that allegation last week.
Vice President JD Vance, visiting the deployed troops in Los Angeles on Friday, emphasized the court’s findings, asserting that the president’s justification for deploying federal troops is legitimate and he would move to do it again if circumstances necessitate.
“The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small: if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we’re not going to send in the National Guard because it’s unnecessary,” Vance articulated to reporters.
The National Guard troops have been seen accompanying federal agents during some immigration raids related to the anti-ICE demonstrations. Additionally, Marines have reportedly detained a civilian on the first day of their deployment to safeguard a federal building. This action marks the first instance of federal troops detaining a civilian since their arrival in Los Angeles.
Judge Breyer previously ruled that President Trump acted outside of his authority when deploying troops without the consent of Governor Newsom. Nevertheless, an appellate court ruling lifted Breyer’s temporary restraining order, allowing the troops to remain under federal control for the time being.
During the recent court proceedings, Breyer sought clarity from the lawyers regarding whether he or the appellate court holds the primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction pertaining to the Posse Comitatus Act.
California is currently seeking a preliminary injunction to regain control of the troops stationed in Los Angeles, where protests have begun to subside in recent days. President Trump has maintained that the troops are essential for restoring order, while Governor Newsom argues that their presence has only contributed to elevated tensions and misallocated resources.
Breyer expressed skepticism regarding the justification for such military presence, commenting that the protests in Los Angeles do not constitute ‘rebellion’ or a serious threat that would warrant federal control over state National Guard troops. The administration has contended that it should not be second-guessed by the courts, claiming justification in its actions based on violent outbursts from protesters.
While the appellate panel determined that the president does not have unlimited authority to seize a state’s National Guard, it acknowledged that enough evidence was presented to justify federalizing the troops in response to violence.
As the lawsuit unfolds, the California National Guard will remain under federal command, marking a significant event as this is the first deployment of state National Guard without governor approval since the Civil Rights Movement in 1965.
image source from：foxnews
