9th Circuit sides with Trump administration in challenge to L.A. troop deployment
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California's objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not 'unreviewable' — authority to deploy the military in American cities.
'We disagree with Defendants' primary argument that the President's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard ... is completely insulated from judicial review,' Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, a Trump appointee, wrote for the appellate panel. 'Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor ... our review of that decision must be highly deferential.'
Legal scholars said the decision was expected — particularly as the 9th Circuit has moved from the country's most liberal to one of its most 'balanced' since the start of Trump's first term.
'It's critically important for the people to understand just how much power Congress has given the president through these statutes,' said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at Central Florida University and an appellate military judge.
'Judges for hundreds of years now have given extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] use of the military,' the expert went on. 'There is no other area of law where the president or executive gets that level of deference.'
The appellate panel sharply questioned both sides during Tuesday's hearing, appearing to reject the federal government's assertion that courts had no right to review the president's actions, while also undercutting California's claim that President Trump had overstepped his authority in sending troops to L.A. to quell a 'rebellion against the authority of the United States.'
'All three judges seemed skeptical of the arguments that each party was making in its most extreme form,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice.
'I was impressed with the questions,' she went on. 'I think they were fair questions, I think they were hard questions. I think the judges were wrestling with the right issues.'
The ruling Thursday largely returns the issue to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order last Thursday would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles amounted to a 'rebellion.'
Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power.
Bennett's opinion directly refuted the argument — made by Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate in Tuesday's hearing — that the decision to federalize national guard troops was 'unreviewable.'
'Defendants argue that this language precludes review,' the judge wrote. '[But Supreme Court precedent] does not compel us to accept the federal government's position that the President could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.'
He also quoted at length from the 1932 Supreme Court decision in Sterling v. Constantin, writing '[t]he nature of the [president's] power also necessarily implies that there is a permitted range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in meeting force with force, in suppressing violence and restoring order.'
Shumate told the judge he didn't know the case when Bennett asked him about it early in Tuesday's hearing.
'That is a key case in that line of cases, and the fact he was not aware of it is extraordinary,' Goetein said.
Merriam agreed — to a point.
'That's a nightmare we have in law school — it's a nightmare I've had as an appellate judge,' the scholar said.
However, 'it's actually a good thing that the attorney representing the U.S. was not planning to talk about martial law in front of the 9th Circuit,' Merriam said.
One thing Thursday's ruling did not touch is whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by deputizing the military to act as civilian law enforcement — an allegation California leveled in its original complaint, but which Breyer effectively tabled last week.
'The Posse Comitatus Actclaim has not been resolved because it was essentially not ripe last Thursday,' when troops had just arrived, Goetein said. 'It is ripe now.'
'Even if the 9th Circuit agrees with the federal government on everything, we could see a ruling from the district court next week that could limit what troops can do on the ground,' she said.
In the meantime, residents of an increasingly quiet Los Angeles will have to live with the growing number of federal troops.
'[Congress] didn't limit rebellion to specific types of facts,' Merriam said. 'As much as [Angelenos] might say, 'This is crazy! There's not a rebellion going on in LA right now,' this is where we are with the law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
FBI increases surveillance of Iran-backed operatives in US: source
The FBI is increasing its monitoring of Iran-backed operatives in the U.S. as President Donald Trump weighs involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, a senior law enforcement source confirmed to Fox News Friday. The White House said Thursday Trump will make a decision on U.S. involvement in the conflict within two weeks. The monitoring reportedly includes surveillance of possible sleeper cells linked to the Tehran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, according to CBS News. The Lebanon-based terror group also got a clear warning from Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz not to join the conflict. The decision to increase monitoring comes just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Iran was plotting to assassinate Trump because the regime saw him as a threat to its nuclear program. "They want to kill him. He's enemy No. 1. He's a decisive leader. He never took the path that others took to try to bargain with them in a way that is weak, giving them basically a pathway to enrich uranium, which means a pathway to the bomb, padding it with billions and billions of dollars," the prime minister told Fox News' Bret Baier during a Sunday edition of "Special Report." While Trump has called for an "unconditional surrender," he has yet to decide whether to involve the U.S. in the conflict. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday he would make a decision within two weeks. Critics from both sides of the aisle have called on the president not to get involved, while others see involvement as a necessity to protect American interests. On Friday, a U.S. official told Fox News the USS Nimitz, which left the South China Sea Monday, would arrive in the Middle East this weekend. The USS Carl Vinson has already been deployed for some time, meaning two U.S. aircraft carriers would be in the Middle East at the same time.
UPI
27 minutes ago
- UPI
U.N. chief says Iran, Israel 'on course to chaos,' urges de-escalation
June 20 (UPI) -- United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Friday urged de-escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran because "we are on course to chaos." The United Nations Security Council met in New York City to discuss the conflict that began one week ago. Iran called for a special session of the 15-member Security Council. Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani described the "large-scale, unprovoked military attack" by Israel. Guterres spoke to the UN. delegations from Geneva, Switzerland, where he working with the foreign ministers from Iran, France, Germany, Britain and the European Union on a diplomatic solution to the situation. Guterres said the war is "escalating rapidly with a terrible toll, killing and injuring civilians, devastating homes and civilian infrastructure, attacking nuclear facilities. The expansion of this conflict could ignite a fire that no one can control. We must not let that happen. "There are moments when our choices are defining, when the direction taken will potentially shape our collective future," he said. "The present conflict between Israel and Iran is such a moment. Let us not look back on this moment with regret. Let us act -- responsibly and together -- to pull the region, and our world, back from the brink." Rafael Grossi, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the Internatiomal Atomic Energy Agency, warned that Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites had caused a "sharp degradation" in nuclear safety and security. He spoke from Geneva. The United States has largely stayed out of the conflict. But U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he would decide whether to bomb Iran "within two weeks." Trump wants a nuclear deal between the United States and Iran. Before the war began last week, they had met several times to agree on a pact regarding uranium enrichment. "President Trump has been clear in recent days that Iran's leadership must completely abandon its nuclear enrichment program and all aspirations of acquiring a nuclear weapon," acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea said Friday. She described the danger of Iran. "The Iranian government has long posed a constant menace to the peace and security of its neighbors and the entire world, which this council is charged to maintain," she said. "The Iranian government has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction and for 'death to America.' They have launched direct and proxy attacks on Israeli civilians, including most recently on southern Israel's largest hospital, and just recently -- in the last couple hours -- on Haifa. Iran's government has also spread chaos, terror, and suffering throughout the region." She said, "It is not too late for the government of Iran to do the right thing." The United States is a permanent member of the council and can veto any resolution. Russia and China, which also are permanent members, condemned Israel's strikes on Iran. Iraq's Ambassador Abbas Kadhom Obaid Al-Fatlawi agreed with them, saying: "Iraq strongly condemns the unjustified Israeli attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the repeated Israeli violations of the sovereignty of states, especially the violations of Iraqi airspace to launch an aggression against neighboring Iran." Israeli planes have passed over Iraq en route to Iran. Al-Fatlawi said the attacks are blatant violations of the U.N. charter and international law, adding that "we will not allow Iraq to become a battleground for settling regional or international scores." Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon countered: "There is no greater threat to international peace and security than a nuclear Iran." He said Israel has acted "as a last resort" and would not "wait for another threat, rocket, missile, terrorist or atomic bomb." On the other side, the Iranian ambassador said: "The council's failure to act ... would constitute a profound abdication of the council's responsibilities." He said the assault was not accidental and "not collateral damage. They were deliberate war crimes, acts of state terror and an example of barbaric warfare." Iravani noted his nation's nuclear program is peaceful, and he said Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with undeclared nuclear weapons. Iran's military response to being attacked was carried out in accordance with international law, he said. The diplomatic bloc of France, Germany, Britain and European Union officials are engaging Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, calling it a "window of opportunity" to return to diplomacy. The other permanent Security Council members are Britain and France. British Ambassador Barbara Woodward called it "a dangerous moment for the entire region." She said she hoped for a diplomatic solution and reaffirmed Britain's support for the IAEA and its inspectors, and urged all parties to protect civilians and uphold international humanitarian law. Britain is not participating in Israeli strikes and has deployed assets only as a defensive measure, she said. French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont also called for restraint and de-escalation. "Civilian lives need to be shielded and there is a need to re-embark on the path of diplomacy," he said. "France solemnly calls on Iran to finally take the opportunity of a negotiated diplomatic solution."
Chicago Tribune
27 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters to the Editor: Vote-by-mail's not the reason Republicans are losing elections; chromosomes not a simple solution for trans sports issue
I find it amusing that Kevin Coyne, chair of the DuPage County GOP, has concluded the only reason DuPage Republicans are losing elections is because they don't vote by mail. Like most of the Republicans left in his party, he refuses to admit that his is now a party of insanity. Many Republicans have jumped ship to the Democratic Party, wandered off as independents or become non-voters out of disgust. Some did so during President Trump's first term; still more in his latter. No, it must be that all-powerful vote by mail and not because Trump rejected the outcome of the 2020 elections, incited a violent insurrection on Jan. 6 and then pardoned the participants, hobbled emergency and health agencies like FEMA and the National Weather Service, and gutted the EPA so polluters are fully free to poison our air and water for greater profits. It can't possibly be because the president rolled back decades of progress for civil and human rights, shut down the heinous 'Sesame Street' or diverted money from seniors' Meals on Wheels so millionaires can be a given a greater tax break. He's made it so it's now OK to threaten universities and oppose law firms you don't like, to accept foreign gifts for personal favor and to sell U.S. citizenship, for which many veterans gave their lives, for the bargain price of $5 million. No, Republicans losing elections must be the result of something else. So, yes, Kevin, please sign your entire party up for vote-by-mail. It's a great plan — for the rest of us, who live in the world of the sane.I am writing in response to the letter, 'Chromosomes should dictate who competes against who,' which ran in the June 15 edition of the Naperville Sun. The idea that 'chromosomes should dictate who competes against who' in sports competitions is overly simplistic and does not reflect the reality of genetic diversity in human beings. Chromosomally, sex is not easily defined. There are many chromosomal variations other than XX or XY, including XXX, XYY and XXX, and many more. What about women who have Turner syndrome or only have one X chromosome or men with Klinefelter syndrome with an XXY karyotype? Should we bar them from sports too? The vast majority of people have not had their own genome sequenced. The original letter writer herself may even have a chromosomal variation other than XX and may never know it. There is no one way for women's bodies, and genes, to be. Trans people belong in sports and denying them the right to participate based on their chromosomes is up in Naperville deeply influenced my path. The opportunities I had at Naperville School District 203 ignited my passions for science and service. Later, federal research experiences shaped my future. When I approached graduation from Lake Forest College, I felt lost. How could I blend my passions into a career? I found the answer during a research internship at Rush University on a project funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease. Today, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I am a doctoral candidate in epidemiology, the field that works to understand and reduce disease. My research and training are largely supported by the National Cancer Institute. Epidemiologists help fight cancer by collecting and analyzing data on cancer cases and deaths. For example, epidemiology research supports the 2022-27 Illinois Cancer Control Plan to reduce cancer, promote prevention and improve care. My research explores why people get colorectal cancer at different rates. While overall rates have decreased since the 2010s, cases in people under 50 have increased by 44% in Illinois over the past two decades. At all ages, Black Illinoisans face the highest rates. Despite great strides, we have a long way to go in the fight to end cancer. But I fear for the future of this fight. This year, federally mandated cuts to the National Institutes of Health's budget will eliminate essential resources like staff, buildings and utilities. Public universities in Illinois are facing a $71.5 million loss in funding, devastating science infrastructure and destroying jobs. Additionally, Illinois universities have had millions in already-awarded grants canceled (including more than $1 million at Rush). These cuts pause essential research, threaten economic growth and undermine the training of the next generation of scientists. Dwindling research funds are not the only threat. In March, the Centers for Disease Control blocked $449 million awarded to the Illinois Department of Public Health. With these cuts, we lose support to fight chronic diseases, like cancer, and infectious disease, like the flu and COVID-19. This is not an issue of political affiliation. Sweeping cuts threaten the research and resources needed to fight disease, leaving everyone's health at stake. Please contact your local, state and federal elected officials and tell them you oppose cuts to science and public health funding. You can also express support by signing the Citizens for Science Policy pledge at was the recent U.S. Army's 250th anniversary overlooked? There was lots of coverage and criticism of the June 14 parade but not much in the way of gratitude for the U.S. Army. Although there's a lot of political turmoil right now, let us never, ever forget that freedom is not free. I'm not going to talk about political views but just be sure to thank all of our military folks and especially the U.S. Army, whose soldiers have protected our freedoms for 250 years! Maybe what was overlooked is that our military are the ones who really guard the gates of freedom around the world for all of us. They are the ones who enable the rights we all enjoy, especially the right to free speech, and have been doing so from 1775 to 2025. Whatever our political views may be, I think we should be both mindful of and thankful for the Army's faithful service to our country. They did a great job in the parade and made us proud. May God continue to bless our country and all of our military.
