Appeals court questions judges' ability to review Trump's Los Angeles troop deployment
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Marines stand watch as people protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies and federal immigration sweeps during a No Kings Day demonstration in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/David Ryder/File Photo
Members of a federal appeals court questioned during a hearing on Tuesday what role courts should have in reviewing President Donald Trump's authority to deploy the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles amid protests and civil unrest.
The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the Trump administration's bid to extend a pause it issued last week on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling that the president had called the National Guard into service unlawfully.
The panel members pressed lawyers for the administration and the state of California on whether courts could review Trump's decision at all.
Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate told the panel that Breyer had "improperly second-guessed the president's judgment" about the need to call up the National Guard in order to protect federal property and personnel from "mob violence" in Los Angeles.
"There is no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision," Shumate said.
Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tensions in a city in the midst of protest and turmoil over the president's immigration raids.
U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, suggested on Tuesday that Breyer's initial ruling may have gone too far and could improperly prevent a president from exercising his discretion in an emergency situation.
'Even if we were to agree with you that there is some limited role of judicial review, how can that test be met here?' Bennett asked California's attorney, Samuel Harbourt.
Bennett and U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, who was appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden, separately asked Harbourt to address a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that states 'the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president.'
Harbourt said the 1827 decision did not apply to the case because it involved different circumstances and it came before Congress passed Section 12406 of Title 10, a law allowing the president to take control of the National Guard to address rebellions or invasions, which Trump cited when deploying the troops.
The 9th Circuit panel, which also included Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, did not issue a ruling on Tuesday. But Bennett suggested that the court could act before a hearing that Breyer has scheduled in the case for Friday.
Breyer, in San Francisco, had ruled last week that Trump unlawfully took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard, but Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marines' mobilization.
Breyer said Trump had not complied with requirements of Title 10, and ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom, who sued over the deployment.
The administration argues that the law gives the president sole discretion to determine whether a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" requires a military response, and that neither the courts nor a state governor can second-guess that determination.
But, Harbourt said Section 12406 requires both dire circumstances such as a rebellion or invasion to exist, and consultation with a state's governor - and none of those conditions were met.
Shumate disagreed, saying that Trump alone has the authority to determine whether the National Guard should be called in, and his failure to include Newsom in the decision was at most a "technical violation" of the statute.
"The governor is merely a conduit, not a roadblock or a core executive, when the president decides it's necessary to call out the Guard," Shumate said.
California's lawsuit, filed on June 9, argues that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violate the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.
The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they were instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Harbourt urged the panel on Tuesday to let Breyer's ruling go into effect. Further pausing the ruling would "profoundly injure the state of California and our nation more generally."
"It would allow defendants to further escalate tensions and the risk of violence in the city of Los Angeles," Harbourt said. "And it would defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest and of keeping the military."
Shumate said that the lower court ruling should be blocked, because it undermined Trump's authority under the U.S. Constitution over the military and his ability to respond to national emergencies. He said troops were doing important work defending ICE agents. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
43 minutes ago
- Business Times
Trump pledge of quick China magnet flows has yet to materialise
[HONG KONG] Almost 10 days since US President Donald Trump declared a 'done' trade deal with Beijing, US companies remain largely in the dark on when they will receive crucial magnets from China, and whether Washington, in turn, will allow a host of other exports to resume. While there has been a trickle of required permits, many American firms that need Chinese minerals are still waiting on Beijing's approval for shipments, according to sources familiar with the process. China's system is improving but remains cumbersome, they said, contrary to Trump's assurances rare earths would flow 'up front' after a Jun 11 accord struck in London. The delays are holding an array of American industries hostage to the rocky US-China relationship, as some firms wait for magnets and others face restrictions son elling to China. That friction risks derailing a fragile tariff truce clinched by Washington and Beijing in Geneva last month, and triggering fresh rounds of retaliation. Interviews with multiple Western buyers, industry insiders and officials familiar with discussions revealed frustration over vague policies in both countries and lingering confusion about what level of magnet approvals from China would trigger Trump to abandon his tit-for-tat export curbs. 'Even if export approvals accelerate, there are so many unknowns about the licensing regime that it's impossible for companies to have a strong sense of certainty about future supply,' said Christopher Beddor, deputy China research director at Gavekal Research. 'At a minimum, they need to factor in a real possibility that talks could break down again, and exports will be halted.' In response to China's sluggishness on magnets, Trump last month restricted US firms from exporting chip software, jet engines and a key ingredient to make plastic to China until President Xi Jinping restores rare-earth exports. Companies subject to Washington's curbs have halted billions of US dollars in planned shipments as they wait for players in unrelated sectors to secure permits from Beijing, which could take weeks or even months to process, given the current pace. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Corporate chiefs affected by the export-control spat have sought clarity from the administration on its strategy, according to sources familiar with the matter. The Commerce Department, which administers the rules, has offered few details, they added. Oil industry executives have tried to convince Trump officials that blocking exports of ethane – a gas used to make plastics – is contrary to US national security interests, according to sources familiar with the deliberations. Business leaders have asked for export restrictions to be removed but that's been unsuccessful so far, the sources said. Energy and chemical giant INEOS Group Holdings has one tanker full of ethane waiting to go, while Enterprise Products Partners has three to four cargo ships stuck in limbo, according to a source familiar with the matter. That's particularly galling because China has adequate ethane supplies in reserve and can switch to using naphtha from the Middle East and other regions for much of their production, the sources said. Representatives from the companies did not respond to requests for comment. Industry figures have consistently told the Trump administration the ethane export restrictions are inflicting more pain on US interests than on China, according to the sources. China's Ministry of Commerce, which administers export licenses, has not responded to Bloomberg's questions on how many for rare earths have been granted since the London talks. At a regular briefing in Beijing on Thursday, spokesperson He Yadong said Beijing was 'accelerating' its process and had given the go-ahead to a 'certain number of compliant applications'. Access to rare earths is an issue 'that is going to continue to metastasise until there is resolution,' said Adam Johnson, chief executive officer of Principal Mineral, which invests in US mineral supply chains for industrial defence. 'This is just a spigot that can be turned on and off by China.' China only agreed to grant licenses, if at all, for six months, before companies need to reapply for approvals. Firms doing business in the US and China could see recurring interruptions, unless the Commerce Ministry significantly increases its pace of process applications. Adding an extra layer of jeopardy for US companies, Chinese suppliers to America's military-industrial base are unlikely to get any magnet permits. After Trump imposed sky-high tariffs in April, Beijing put samarium – a metal essential for weapons such as guided missiles, smart bombs and fighter jets – on a dual-use list that specifically prohibits its shipment for military use. Denying such permits could cause ties to further spiral if Trump believes those actions violate the agreement, the terms of which were never publicised in writing by either side. That sticking point went unresolved during roughly 20 hours of negotiations last week in the UK capital, sources familiar with the details said. Complicating the issue, companies often buy magnets from third-party suppliers, which serve both defence and auto firms, according to a person familiar with the matter. That creates a high burden to prove to Chinese authorities a shipment's final destination is a motor not a missile, the source added. Beijing still has not officially spelt out the deal's requirements, nor has Xi publicly signalled his endorsement of it – a step Trump said was necessary. 'The Geneva and London talks made solid progress towards negotiating an eventual comprehensive trade deal with China,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. 'The administration continues to monitor China's compliance with the agreement reached at Geneva.' China's Commerce Ministry is working to facilitate more approvals even as it asks for reams of information on how the materials will be used, according to sources familiar with the process. In some cases, companies have been asked to supply data including detailed product designs, one of the sources said. Morris Hammer, who leads the US rare-earth magnet business for South Korean steelmaker Posco Holdings, said Chinese officials have expedited shipments for some major US and European automakers since Trump announced the agreement. China's Advanced Technology & Materials said on Wednesday it had obtained permits for some magnet orders, without specifying for which destinations. The company's customers include European aerospace giant Airbus SE, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Around half of US suppliers to Toyota Motor, for example, have had export licenses granted, the company said – but they're still waiting for those materials to actually be delivered. It's likely some of the delays are transport-related, one of the sources said. Even with permits coming online, rare-earth materials are still scarce because overseas shipments were halted for two months starting in April, depleting inventories. Trump's agreement 'will allow for rare earths to flow out of the country for a short period of time, but it's not helping the auto industry because they are still talking shutdowns', Hammer said. 'Nobody trusts that this thaw is going to last.' For many automakers, the situation remains unpredictable, forcing some to hunt for alternatives to Chinese supplies. Two days after Trump touted a finalised trade accord in London, Ford Motor chief executive officer Jim Farley described a 'day-to-day' dynamic around rare-earths licenses – which have already forced the company to temporarily shutter one plant. General Motors has emphasised it's on firmer footing in the longer term, because it invested in domestic magnet making back in 2021. The automaker has an exclusive deal to get the products from MP Materials in Texas, with production starting later in the year. It has another deal with eVAC of Germany to get magnets from a South Carolina plant starting in 2026. In the meantime, GM and its suppliers have applied for permits to get magnets from China, a source familiar with the matter said. Scott Keogh, the CEO of Scout Motors – the upstart EV brand of Volkswagen – told Bloomberg Television his company is re-engineering brakes and drive units to reduce the need for rare earths. Scout is building a plant in South Carolina to make fully electric and hybrid SUVs as well as trucks starting in 2027. Until the rare-earth supply line is reopened to Washington's satisfaction, Trump has indicated that the US is likely to keep in place its own export restrictions. Senior US officials have suggested the curbs are about building and using leverage, rather than their official justification: national security. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the measures were used to 'annoy' China into complying with a deal US negotiators thought they'd already reached. Restrictions on sales to China of electronic design automation (EDA) software for chipmaking are emblematic of the standoff. Those EDA tools are used to design everything, from the highest-end processors for the likes of Nvidia and Apple to simple parts, such as power-regulation components. Fully limiting China's access to the best software, made by a trio of Western firms, has been a longtime priority in some Washington national security circles – and would build on years of US measures targeting China's semiconductor prowess. While some senior Trump officials specifically indicated the administration would relax some semiconductor-related curbs if Beijing relents on rare earths, EDA companies still lack details on when, and whether, their China access will be restored, said industry officials who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Even if that happens, there's a worry that heightened geopolitical risks will push Chinese customers to hunt for other suppliers or further develop domestic capabilities. 'The risk is there for the London deal to fall apart,' said Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at Natixis. 'Because rare earths is a very granular issue and mistakes can be made.' BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
China offers to be peacemaker in Iran-Israel war, but is unlikely to intervene
China's permanent representative to the UN Fu Cong, addresses during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council, on June 13. PHOTO: REUTERS China offers to be peacemaker in Iran-Israel war, but is unlikely to intervene BEIJING - As the conflict between Israel and Iran stretches beyond a week, China has found itself sidelined in developments that could yet have far-reaching consequences for its interests in the Middle East. While Beijing has offered itself as a peacemaker, it is unlikely to wade into the conflict directly, or to supply arms to Iran, say analysts . This is because it wants to avoid confronting the United States, for which military intervention against Iran remains a real possibility. Chinese President Xi Jinping, in a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 19, said China is willing to continue to strengthen communication with all parties and 'play a constructive role in restoring peace in the Middle East'. Hours later, US President Donald Trump effectively gave Iran two weeks to return to the negotiating table to discuss the future of its nuclear programme, by saying he would decide whether the US would attack Iran in that time frame. With Iran seriously weakened by the latest hostilities - its top military commanders have been killed and key nuclear facilities damaged - observers believe the initiative remains with Israel and the US. At stake for China is energy imports. China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil. Iran has also threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and Oman and is a major route for oil and gas shipments from the Gulf states to China, including from Saudi Arabia, China's biggest supplier of crude after Russia. Even so, beyond issuing diplomatic statements, China is unlikely to intervene, said analysts. While some have touted China's growing influence in the Middle East, particularly after it brokered a landmark normalisation deal between arch-rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, it has little appetite to be embroiled in the region's conflicts. Associate Professor Jonathan Fulton, an expert in China's relations with the Middle East, said China's interests in the Middle East are primarily economic, noting also that it buys much more oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Oman than Iran. 'When China looks at Iran, I think they see a partner of limited economic value,' he said. 'They also see a country that, through its proxies or its own aggressive behaviour, has destabilised a lot of the Middle East.' Another major reason for China's inaction is that it does not want to antagonise the US, said Prof Fulton, who is nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a US think tank. 'Much like the logic with Ukraine - if China gives weapons to Russia and Russia uses them to attack Ukraine, this is going to provoke Nato and make China an enemy in the eyes of countries that it wants to have good economic and political relations with,' he added. Chinese officials have repeatedly called for a ceasefire since Israel began a major offensive against Iran on June 12 to cripple Tehran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, seen by Israel as a threat to its security. Since that first salvo, there have been tit-for-tat air strikes between the two countries, an ongoing conflict that could yet lead to the overthrow of the leaders of the Islamic republic. China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi has suggested through phone calls to his counterparts in the Middle East - Iran and Israel, as well as Egypt and Oman which are involved in mediation efforts - that China is willing to coordinate with regional countries for peace. Dr Clemens Chay, a research fellow from the Middle East Institute at the National University of Singapore, said: 'Beyond the perfunctory statements and calls by Chinese officials, it is unlikely Beijing will stick its hand in - certainly not militarily - in the ongoing tit-for-tat strikes between Iran and Israel.' Given that China has energy interests in the region, including in Iranian oil, the logical approach for it would be to call for de-escalation, he said. 'But to deploy its forces will be too much of an ask.' Dr Andrea Ghiselli, a lecturer in international politics at the University of Exeter who focuses on Chinese foreign policy in the Middle East, said Mr Wang's phone calls should be read as a way for China to get a better read of the situation. China is probably seeking to understand how regional powers and countries like Russia are preparing for a possible collapse of the regime in Iran and the consequent emergence of Israel as a regional hegemon, said Dr Ghiselli, who also heads research at the ChinaMed Project of the Torino World Affairs Institute, an Italian think tank. A possible regime change in Iran - which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said could happen, even if his government does not aim to bring it about - would also not likely to be welcomed by China, not least because the next leadership may be less predictable. Dr Gedaliah Afterman of Reichman University in Israel said a quick collapse of the regime or power vacuum would threaten China's investments, infrastructure and strategic access across the region. 'Beijing prefers continuity and predictability, particularly given Iran's current economic dependence on China,' he added. He said the best-case scenario for China is a swift de-escalation that avoids direct US-Iran confrontation, preserves the existing regional order in which Beijing feels increasingly comfortable, and enables it to continue balancing relations with Iran, the Gulf and Israel. 'China may also seek to present itself as playing a role in any renewed nuclear agreement, even if only symbolically, especially if this comes at the expense of US influence in the region,' said Dr Afterman. Lim Min Zhang is China correspondent at The Straits Times. He has an interest in Chinese politics, technology, defence and foreign policies. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
Japan scraps US meeting after Washington demands more defense spending, World News
WASHINGTON - Japan has cancelled a regular high-level meeting with its key ally the United States after the Trump administration demanded it spend more on defence, the Financial Times reported on Friday (June 20). Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had been expected to meet Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya and Defence Minister Gen Nakatani in Washington on July 1 for the annual 2+2 security talks. But Tokyo scrapped the meeting after the US asked Japan to boost defence spending to 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product, higher than an earlier request of 3 per cent, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources familiar with the matter. Japan's Nikkei newspaper reported on Saturday that President Donald Trump's government was demanding that its Asian allies, including Japan, spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. A US official who asked not to be identified told Reuters that Japan had "postponed" the talks in a decision made several weeks ago. The official did not cite a reason. A non-government source familiar with the issue said he had also heard Japan had pulled out of the meeting but not the reason for it doing so. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said she had no comment on the FT report when asked about it at regular briefing. The Pentagon also had no immediate comment. Japan's embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. The nation's foreign and defence ministries and the Prime Minister's Office did not answer phone calls seeking comment outside business hours on Saturday. [[nid:715497]] The FT said the higher spending demand was made in recent weeks by Elbridge Colby, the third-most senior Pentagon official, who has also recently upset another key US ally in the Indo-Pacific by launching a review of a project to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. In March, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that other nations do not decide Japan's defence budget after Colby, in his nomination hearing to be under secretary of defence for policy, called for Tokyo to spend more to counter China. Japan and other US allies have been engaged in difficult trade talks with the United States over President Donald Trump's worldwide tariff offensive. The FT said the decision to cancel the July 1 meeting was also related to Japan's July 20 upper house elections, expected to be a major test for Ishiba's minority coalition government. Japan's move on the 2+2 comes ahead of a meeting of the US-led Nato alliance in Europe next week, at which Trump is expected to press his demand that European allies boost their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP.
