Trump can retain control of California National Guard for now, appeals court rules
Trump can retain control of California National Guard for now, appeals court rules
Show Caption
Hide Caption
LA mayor says Trump is 'usurping' Gavin Newsom's authority
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is asking the Trump admin to stop immigration raids in order to curb responses from protesters.
A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control over California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests and unrest in Los Angeles.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 19 extended a pause it placed on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had called the National Guard into federal service unlawfully.
Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Breyer ruled that Trump violated the U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor, and also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist.
Breyer ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. Hours after Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel put the judge's move on hold temporarily.
Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against the wishes of Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilization.
At a court hearing earlier this week on whether to extend the pause on Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Trump's authority to deploy the troops.
The law sets out three conditions under which a president can federalize state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the U.S. government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws.
The Justice Department has said that once the president determines that an emergency that warrants the use of the National Guard exists, no court or state governor can review that decision.
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 the second most-populous U.S. city.
The protests in Los Angeles lasted for more than a week, but subsequently ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed.
California argued in its June 9 lawsuit that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and U.S. laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.
The lawsuit stated the situation in Los Angeles was nothing like a "rebellion." The protests involved sporadic acts of violence that state and local law enforcement were capable of handling without military involvement, according to the lawsuit.
The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying that they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.
(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York and Kanishka Singh in Washington, Editing by Will Dunham and Alexia Garamfalvi)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Soccer Star Dishes On 'Weird' Oval Office Moment With Donald Trump
U.S. Men's National Soccer Team star Timothy Weah has opened up about what he described as the 'weird' experience of standing behind Donald Trump in the Oval Office while the president fielded questions on the Iran-Israel war and attacked the idea of transgender women competing in women's sports. Weah was at the White House with his Juventus teammates on Wednesday as part of a promotional event for the FIFA Club World Cup, ahead of the Italian side's 5-0 victory over the United Arab Emirates' Al-Ain FC. Advertisement Trump invited questions from reporters about the game and the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which the U.S. will host alongside Mexico and Canada. But the Juventus players stood uncomfortably behind POTUS as he instead answered queries about the more pressing political questions of the day. Weah, the son of former Liberian soccer star-turned-former president George Weah, later told reporters that the players had been made to attend the event. 'They told us that we have to go and I had no choice but to go,' he explained, reported The Athletic. 'I was caught by surprise, honestly. It was a bit weird,' he added. 'When he started talking about the politics with Iran and everything, it's kind of like, I just want to play football, man.' Related...
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bassiri Tabrizi: Promising To See Diplomacy Back on Table
President Trump says he is putting off US action on Iran, for now. The White House says he'll decide within two weeks whether to attack, adding that his goal remains halting uranium enrichment, and he remains open to diplomacy if possible. Gulf leaders are assessing the possibility of the Islamic Republic's clerical regime falling as an impact of the war between Israel and Iran. Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, Senior Analyst at Control Risks told Bloomberg's Horizons Middle East and Africa anchor Joumanna Bercetche on the next steps ahead. (Source: Bloomberg)
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Russia Reacts to Trump Tactical Nuclear Bomb Report: 'Catastrophic'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Russia said the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the U.S. in Iran would be "catastrophic" after a report that it had not been ruled out as an option for President Donald Trump, who is considering joining Israel's strikes. "There is a lot of speculation now," said Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, state news agency TASS reported. "Such a development of events would be catastrophic, but there is so much speculation that it is actually impossible to comment on it." The question is whether a bunker-buster bomb would be sufficient to destroy Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility, which is built deep into a mountain, or if it would take a tactical nuclear bomb to finish the job. The Guardian had reported that tactical nuclear weapons were considered more capable of destroying Fordow, citing unnamed defense officials, but that Trump was not presented with or considering them as an option. Later, Fox News reported that all military options were still on the table for the U.S., citing an unnamed top official, but that the military is very confident bunker-buster bombs could destroy Fordow. There has been no official comment from the U.S. about whether the use of a tactical nuclear weapon is being considered. Trump is giving himself two weeks to decide if he should strike Iran, a window of time for Tehran to avert such a fate by abandoning its nuclear program. It denies seeking to build a nuclear bomb, saying the program is for energy purposes. But Iran has enriched uranium to a level very close to that required for a bomb, and well beyond what is needed for civilian energy. Trump says Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear bomb. This is a developing article. Updates to follow.
