U.S. appeals court weighs Trump's deployment of National Guard in L.A.
Washington — A federal appeals court in San Francisco weighed Tuesday whether President Trump can continue with his deployment of California's National Guard in Los Angeles to protect federal immigration authorities during enforcement operations and appeared skeptical of the state's arguments against the president's mobilization of more than 4,000 troops.
The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard arguments on a Justice Department request for it to halt a district judge's order that required Mr. Trump to return control of the National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom while the court fight moves forward. Newsom, a Democrat, objects to the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles.
Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, said Mr. Trump's decision to call National Guard troops into federal service under a law known as Title 10 is unreviewable by courts, regardless of the facts of the case. If the panel were to side with California, he warned, "it puts Article III judges on a collision course with the commander-in-chief."
Shumate said that California's interpretation of the law is "dangerous" and would allow Newsom to issue a "pocket veto" of any future orders from Mr. Trump. He said it's "essential" that the district court's injunction be lifted and said leaving it intact would put "lives and property at risk."
Shumate said that if the 9th Circuit declines to halt the district judge's order, it should allow the Justice Department time to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
But Sam Harbourt, a deputy solicitor general for California, said Mr. Trump's order calling the National Guard into federal service sweeps too broadly. He told the court that the president failed to consider any "modest measures" to quell protests in Los Angeles before taking the "grave and extraordinary step" of calling forth the National Guard.
Harbourt told the judges that Mr. Trump circumvented Newsom when he unilaterally decided to deploy the California National Guard to Los Angeles and warned that the continued presence of troops in city streets would escalate tensions and the risk of violence.
The three judges considering the Trump administration's request for a stay during the appeal are Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller and Jennifer Sung. Mr. Trump appointed Bennett and Miller during his first term, and former President Joe Biden tapped Sung for the 9th Circuit.
Early on, Bennett appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's position that courts cannot review the president's decision to federalize the National Guard and should not second-guess his military judgments. But as the arguments continued, all three judges pressed Harbourt on his position.
Bennett asked where in the law there is a requirement for the president to have considered alternative measures before exercising control of the National Guard. He also probed Harbourt on his claim that Title 10 required Mr. Trump to consult with Newsom before calling the California troops into federal service.
Miller cited a state law that he said effectively makes the adjutant general of the California National Guard a "substitute" for the governor. Mr. Trump had directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to effectuate the federalization of Guard troops, and he then issued memoranda to the adjutant general to transfer authority over the Guard from the state to the federal government.
The case landed before the 9th Circuit after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last week that Mr. Trump's actions in deploying the National Guard to respond to protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles were illegal and blocked the administration from deploying the troops in the city.
The Trump administration swiftly appealed that decision, and the 9th Circuit panel issued a temporary administrative stay while it took more time to consider the issue.
The legal battle involves whether the president exceeded his authority when he invoked Title 10 to call forth the California National Guard in response to protests in California's largest city. Demonstrations broke out earlier this month after immigration agents conducted raids across Los Angeles as part of the administration's efforts to crack down on immigration and execute mass deportations.
Title 10 lays out three circumstances under which the National Guard can be called into federal service: when the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the U.S.; or when the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws. It then says that orders "shall be issued through" the governor.
Mr. Trump said in his June 7 memorandum ordering the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members that the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion," which allowed him to federalize the National Guard and bypass Newsom. An additional 2,000 troops were brought under federal command. Roughly 700 active-duty U.S. Marines have also been mobilized to the area to protect federal property and immigration agents during arrests.
In his decision, Breyer rejected the president's claim that the demonstrations are a "rebellion," writing that he is "troubled by the implication inherent in defendants' argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion."
The protests, the judge said, "fall far short" of rebellion, and the administration failed to identify a "violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole." The judge's order did not address the president's mobilization of the Marines to Los Angeles.
In filings with the 9th Circuit, the Trump administration argued that courts do not have a role in reviewing the president's decision to deploy the troops. Even if courts could review his decision to call the National Guard into federal service, the Justice Department said the president had ample reason to determine that the protests in Los Angeles rose to the level of a "danger" of rebellion, one of the conditions laid out in Title 10.
"The district court's order improperly impinges on the commander in chief's supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the Held, and puts federal officers (and others) in harm's way," Justice Department lawyers wrote.
Newsom and California officials told the 9th Circuit in filings that Breyer's order should be left undisturbed, as it restored the status quo in place before Mr. Trump's June 7 memorandum.
"Considered individually, defendants' legal arguments are meritless. Considered in the aggregate, they are terrifying," California lawyers wrote. They said that the administration's interpretation of Title 10 "would empower the president to commandeer a state's National Guard based merely on evidence that some civilians opposed his authority, disobeyed his commands, or presented operational difficulties for civil law enforcement officials — and without any input from (or even notice to) the governor. "
They said that "unchecked power" could be used in any context, "not just where civilians are protesting immigration enforcement, but also where they are protesting other policies of a federal administration, or protesting in advance of a hotly contested federal election."
"Collectively, defendants' arguments would sideline the judiciary, ignore Congress's limitations, and trample over the states' sovereign interest in their own militias," California's attorneys argued.
Among the issues before the 9th Circuit panel is whether the Trump administration properly notified Newsom of its order calling the National Guard into federal service. The Justice Department argued in lower court proceedings that it did because two memos calling up the National Guard went through California's adjutant general, who runs the California National Guard, and not Newsom's office, as California has argued is necessary.
That argument, Breyer wrote, "strains credibility" because Congress mandates that the National Guard requires the notice to be "issued through the governors."
Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder
10 years after shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church, victims speak of forgiveness
Migrant farm workers express fears of ICE raids
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
36 minutes ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
New York Post
38 minutes ago
- New York Post
Accused Minnesota assassin wildly claimed in ‘incoherent' letter that Gov. Tim Walz instructed him to kill Sen. Amy Klobuchar: report
Accused Minnesota political assassin Vance Boetler wrote a deranged letter addressed to the FBI in which he wildly claimed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz instructed him to kill Sen. Amy Klobuchar, according to a report. Boetler, 57, alleged in the rambling, conspiratorial letter that the former Democrat vice presidential candidate directed him to murder Klobuchar (D-MN) as part of a supposed plot for Walz to take her spot in the Senate, The Minnesota Star Tribune reported, citing people familiar with the writings. The letter, which is one and a half pages long, is mostly incoherent and gives insight into the muddled mind of the Minnesota madman, those sources told the outlet. Advertisement 5 Boetler is accused of killing Minnesota Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband and shooting state senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette. Vance Boelter/Linkedin 5 Boelter was arrested on June 15, 2025. via REUTERS Neither Walz nor Klobuchar responded directly to the information contained in the letter but each issued statements on the shootings following the report. Advertisement 'Governor Walz is grateful to law enforcement who apprehended the shooter, and he's grateful to the prosecutors who will ensure justice is swiftly served,' Walz spokesman Teddy Tschann told the Star Tribune. Klobuchar said in a statement, 'Boetler is a very dangerous man and I am deeply grateful that law enforcement got him behind bars before he killed other people.' Boetler is accused of killing Minnesota House rep Melissa Hortman and her husband and shooting state senator John Hoffman and his wife Yvette in an early morning targeted attack on June 14 during which the alleged killer donned a creepy latex mask and wore a police officer's uniform. 5 A copy of notes the suspect allegedly wrote in his notebook. District Court of Minnesota Advertisement 5 Boetler alleged that he was ordered to murder Sen. Amy Klobuchar Getty Images 5 Neither Walz nor Klobuchar responded directly to the information contained in the letter. AP At the home of Hoffman, investigators got into a shootout with Boetler who fled — leaving behind a 'manifesto' that listed the names of 70 politicians to kill – including Gov. Walz who once appointed the 57-year-old to a state-wide board. Advertisement Boetler was captured in a wooded area in Sibley County on Sunday following the largest manhunt the Land of 10,000 Lakes has ever seen — with SWAT teams swarming after getting a tip from a local resident who spotted the fugitive on a trail cam, the Star Tribune reported. The maniac faces federal murder and stalking charges in addition to state charges and, if convicted, could face the death penalty.
