Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday
A federal hearing is scheduled Thursday over whether the Trump administration can deploy National Guardsmen and Marines to the Los Angeles area to assist with enforcing federal immigration laws.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block expansion of what they called President Donald Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization."
MORE: Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California
The request, which was filed as part of Newsom and Bonta's lawsuit against the Trump administration, seeks to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines beyond protecting federal buildings and property.
To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions.
Bonta argued in the filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment.
"To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote.
MORE: Protests live updates: Americans split over support of LA protests, poll finds
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response.
In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law."
"The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote.
They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters.
Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines have been deployed to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary.
Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle.
MORE: How the immigration protests in Los Angeles started
Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control."
"All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it."
Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force.
"If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here."
ABC News' Peter Charalambous and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
Hearing on California's challenge to Trump's deployment of troops to LA set for Thursday originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
7 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
What's Next After the Initial Fallout from US Strikes on Iran
What's next? The unprecedented US airstrikes on Iran have set traders and governments worldwide on edge, as the Islamic Republic warns of retaliation and Israel shows no sign of letting up in its assault. Asian currencies and stocks fell, European stock futures declined while oil advanced, then erased gains, after Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend. China and Pakistan were quick to condemn — even though China hasn't yet offered substantial assistance to Tehran besides rhetorical support and Pakistan is at the same time taking steps to build stronger ties with the White House. The US State Department issued a ' Worldwide Caution ' alert for Americans. More critically, President Donald Trump's decision to deploy bunker-busting bombs — in Washington's first direct military action against Iran after decades of hostility — has pushed the Middle East into uncharted territory. Did the end justify the means? While the US attacks have set back Iran's nuclear ambitions and dealt its clerical regime a humiliating blow, the program hasn't been completely destroyed. The move may ultimately lead Tehran to end international monitoring of its nuclear program and consider going ahead to develop a bomb. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't been seen in public in 11 days but remains in control. Even as diplomatic allies Russia and China have stayed on the sidelines and its network of armed proxies in the region remains weakened, Tehran still has ways to inflict pain on the US as it plans its retaliation. Two supertankers, each capable of hauling about 2 million barrels of crude, U-turned in the Strait of Hormuz after the US airstrikes on Iran raised the risk of a response that would ensnare commercial shipping in the region, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. The two empty freighters then sailed south, away from the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The turning oil carriers offer the first signs of re-routing, something that oil traders will scrutinize. Any disruption to traffic through the strait, a major artery for global crude and natural gas, raises the specter of a spike in energy prices. That's bad news for Asia, which buys more than four-fifths of all the crude produced in the Middle East, 90% of which goes through the Strait of Hormuz.
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
