Appeals court sides with Trump on National Guard deployment in LA
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has sided with President Donald Trump after California Governor Gavin Newsom sued his administration for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops during mass anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles that erupted earlier this month.
'We conclude that it is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority' by deploying the Guard, the appeals court wrote in a ruling late Thursday.
The judges cited a federal law allowing the federalization of the Guard when 'the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'
Additionally, the judges wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notifying the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, 'likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued 'through' the Governor.'
The appeals court order indefinitely blocks a previous order from U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Breyer ruled last Thursday that Trump's actions 'were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.'
'He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,' the judge wrote.
The Trump administration quickly appealed Breyer's order, prompting the appeals court to temporarily pause the ruling the same night Breyer handed it down.
During a previous hearing before Breyer, an attorney for California claimed the Trump administration was attempting a 'dangerous expansion of executive power' with its deployment of the Guard.
Trump's team argued that the president rightfully used his powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and it communicated its orders to the state official responsible for the Guard.
At one point in the hearing, Breyer suggested political leaders making decisions without checks and balances were more like the king against whom the 13 colonies revolted during the American Revolution.
'That's the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said, per Politico. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.'
The Independent's Alex Woodward contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks Newsom's bid to reclaim control of National Guard from Trump
A federal appeals court has indefinitely blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops President Donald Trump deployed to Los Angeles following unrest related to immigration enforcement. The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Trump appeared to have acted within his authority when he took control of 4,000 California National Guard troops under a law that has never been invoked without the consent of a state governor. Despite a debate over the level of violence accompanying the protests, the judges — two appointed by Trump and one by President Joe Biden — concluded that the law gives Trump enormous latitude to determine that the protests and related violence were interfering with execution of federal law. The judges said there are limits to the president's ability to call up the Guard, but there was enough evidence of civil unrest and danger to federal officials to justify Trump's actions. The ruling indefinitely sets aside a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who last week issued a temporary restraining order against Trump's deployment of the Guard. Breyer is scheduled to hold another hearing in the case on Friday to consider Newsom's request for a longer-term block of both the Guard deployment and Trump's subsequent deployment of 700 Marines. The three judges on the panel were Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. All three appeared skeptical of Newsom's position during oral arguments on Tuesday. Their Thursday night order was issued on a 'per curiam' basis, which means no judge was identified as the author of the opinion. Newsom, a Democrat, could ask a larger, 11-judge panel of the appeals court to take up the issue or seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. Despite ultimately ruling for Trump, all three judges flatly rejected his administration's claim that the courts had no role in reviewing his call-up of the military to Los Angeles. Had Trump's call-up been 'obviously absurd or made in bad faith,' they said, courts would clearly have a role in assessing it. However, the appeals court said a line of legal precedents dating to the early 19th century indicated that the court's review of Trump's decision should be 'especially deferential' and that the president's orders should be upheld if they reflect 'a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a 'range of honest judgment.'' Newsom and his attorneys argued that Trump's involvement of the National Guard was likely to fuel more anger from protesters and inflame an already tense situation on the streets of L.A. But the appeals judges said those concerns were too remote to entitle the state to an order reversing Trump's action. 'California's concerns about escalation and interference with local law enforcement, at present, are too speculative. We do not know whether future protests will grow due to the deployment of the National Guard,' the court wrote. 'And we do not know what emergencies may occur in California while the National Guard is deployed.' There are signs that the protests and altercations with authorities have actually diminished in the days since the deployment. After imposing a curfew in downtown L.A last week, Mayor Karen Bass eased the curfew Monday and lifted it on Tuesday. The 9th Circuit judges also concluded that a technical aspect of the law — a requirement that Trump issue his order to call up the Guard 'through' Newsom — was not violated, even though the order was delivered to Newsom's subordinate. Even if it were a violation, they added, it wouldn't justify Breyer's ruling to rescind the order altogether. The appeals court panel had put a temporary hold on Breyer's ruling shortly after he issued it — an administrative measure to give the panel time to hear arguments. The decision Thursday grants the Trump administration's request to keep the hold in place as litigation proceeds. While it's not a final ruling on the legality of Trump's deployment order, by the time those issues are resolved by another panel of the appeals court, the Guard deployment could be over and the dispute could be moot.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The history of presidents activating US troops on American soil
Thirty-three years after the National Guard was first called to enter Los Angeles, its members are once again back in The City of Angels — this time under different circumstances. Codified in the 1903 Militia Act and the National Defense Act of 1916, the 54 National Guard units of today are a part-time reserve force that serve either the state or federal governments in times of emergency or war. Since then, the vast majority of the Guard's domestic deployments have been to keep the peace during civil unrest or provide assistance during natural disasters. Presidents have rarely federalized the National Guard to intervene in protests on U.S. soil, but since the latter half of the 20th century there has been an upward tick in their utility. According to The Washington Post, 'State officials have a range of tools available to them to deal with civil disturbance, including local, state and federal law enforcement, or even federal troops. They rarely request the National Guard's assistance — and federal officials doing so is even more uncommon.' In 1992, at the request of California's Republican governor, Pete Wilson, and the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, President George H.W. Bush ordered thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell one of the city's worst riots following the arrest and beating of Rodney King. Dozens of people were killed, and more than 1,500 people were injured as tensions over the acquittal of the police officers who beat King boiled over. An estimated $500 million in property damages further racked the city. President Donald Trump's ordering of 2,000 California National Guard troops to enter the city this month differs from 1992 event, however. The California National Guard was ordered to deploy to Los Angeles to intervene against the growing discontent and protests against the Trump administration's immigration policies and raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump's order was in direct contravention to California Gov. Gavin Newsom's wishes. Lawmakers condemn Trump's use of Guard, active-duty troops in LA Instead of invoking the Insurrection Act, which Bush used in 1992, Trump used Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The provision allows for the federal government to utilize the National Guard in the event that there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Newsom pushed back on these claims. On June 8, Newsom shared on X a letter he addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in which he 'formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California.' Trump's order is the first time a president has called upon the National Guard without a governor's consent in over six decades. In 2006, President George W. Bush considered federalizing the Louisiana National Guard in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina but abandoned such plans after Kathleen Blanco, the state's Democratic governor, opposed it. 'There is not a governor in this country, four territories, or the mayor of Washington, D.C., who would give up control of the National Guard,' Blanco later told a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. 'You absolutely have to have the law enforcement capacity of the Guard in these circumstances.' Newsom sued Trump and Hegseth on June 9, claiming the act surpassed the authority of the federal government and violated the Tenth Amendment. 'Let me be clear,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement that same day. 'There is no rebellion. The President is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends.' In an interview with CNN, the city's mayor, Karen Bass, doubled down, stating, 'This is not citywide civil unrest taking place in Los Angeles. A few streets downtown — it looks horrible.' She added that those found to be committing acts of vandalism would be arrested and prosecuted. Appeals court rules Trump can deploy National Guard to LA for now Since the Civil War, there have been several significant instances when the National Guard was called upon to restore order, including President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously deploying troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 after the integration of an all-white Central High School. President John F. Kennedy activated the Mississippi National Guard in 1962 to enforce the integration of the University of Mississippi, and he did so once again in 1963 against the wishes of Alabama Gov. George Wallace to integrate the University of Alabama. In 1965, the federal government, then led by President Lyndon B. Johnson, went against the wishes of Wallace a second time and called upon the National Guard to restore order after peaceful civil rights activists were brutally attacked by Alabama State Troopers outside of Selma. Guard members were called upon during the 1967 Detroit 'Uprising,' in which the city witnessed five days of intense and violent protests over police brutality. They were also activated after riots shook Washington, Chicago, Baltimore and other U.S. cities following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Presently, the California National Guard are not deployed under the Insurrection Act, which means, The Washington Post reported, that they cannot perform law enforcement operations, such as immigration raids, arrests and home searches. Instead, they can only perform logistics and other support missions.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Deadly lawmaker ambush in Minnesota raises fears about fake police officers knocking on doors
Vance Boelter left the state of Minnesota in fear after he allegedly posed as a police officer and carried out the shootings of two state lawmakers, killing one and her husband, at their homes last week. But what can you do to verify that the person who knocks on your door or pulls you over while you're in your vehicle is a law enforcement officer? Mark Bruley, chief of police in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, where Boelter allegedly shot and killed Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, told reporters at a press conference earlier this week that there's one thing you can do that's "never wrong." "You always can call 911 and verify if the person at your door is a police officer," Bruley said. "If they are working police officer, they will be connected to a dispatch center that can validate that. So the first thing I would do is, if you're concerned about it, is call 911. Obviously, there's a lot of different uniforms, and it's never wrong to do that." What Motivated Suspect In Minnesota Lawmaker Shooting Is Unclear, So Are His Politics Police officers typically wear a visible badge with their identification number and name on their uniform. They often also carry agency-issued photo identification that can include their name, rank and agency information. Read On The Fox News App Fox News Digital spoke with Brian Higgins, founder of Group 77 and former Chief of Police of Bergen County, N.J., to learn more about what citizens can do in cases where they feel the need to verify that who they're speaking to is a law enforcement officer. Higgins said that most verification measures, such as requesting the officer's photo identification, require the citizen to open the door, at which point it would be too late if the individual is an impersonator. "If you're not sure, don't open the door," Higgins said, adding that citizens can stand to the side of their door and speak to officers through the door while calling 911 or the local police department to confirm that an officer was sent to their home. Higgins said that knowing what police uniforms look like and, if you live in a town with a smaller police force, being familiar with its members helps with verifying. "If you see an officer not in uniform, not someone you recognize," Higgins said, "it's prudent to call police and ask if this person is a police officer." Not all situations, however, are the same. "It's more difficult when on the road and a police officer pulls you over," Higgins said of verification during traffic stops. In these situations, Higgins said it's important to know what law enforcement vehicles look like, adding that sometimes real law enforcement cars can be unmarked. Minnesota Police Praised For Foiling Lawmaker Shooting Suspect's Plan Higgins said officers usually call in traffic violations to dispatch, so drivers can still call 911 or the local police to verify that an officer performing their duties initiated the stop. Higgins advised citizens to always be aware of their surroundings and to pull over in public places, if possible. If unable to immediately pull over in a public place, Higgins said drivers can lower their window just enough, keep their car in drive and ask the officer if it's possible to drive to another place that is safer or more public. Higgins said that police officers understand that citizens may be uncertain or nervous and ask for verification. "If their answer is anything other than professional, it should raise a concern," Higgins said. In the case in Minnesota, Boelter allegedly impersonated a police officer, wearing a flesh-colored mask, a black tactical vest and carrying a flashlight before shooting and killing state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, and wounding state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, at their respective homes. Boelter also drove a black SUV equipped with police-style lights and a fake license plate that said "POLICE," according to a court affidavit. Video footage from Hoffman's home shows a masked Boelter at the front door wearing the black tactical vest and holding a flashlight, according to the affidavit. Boelter then allegedly knocked on their door and shouted repeatedly, "This is the police. Open the door." The Hoffmans answered the door but, since Boelter was shining the flashlight in their eyes, realized too late that Boelter was not a real police officer, the affidavit article source: Deadly lawmaker ambush in Minnesota raises fears about fake police officers knocking on doors
