US Appeals Court Allows Trump Control of National Guard in LA
A US appeals court on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump could continue control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines into Los Angeles this month in response to protests over federal immigration sweeps -- a move opposed by city leaders and Newsom.
Trump was within his rights when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to "protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property," the three-judge panel wrote in their 38-page unanimous ruling.
"Affording appropriate deference to the President's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard," they said
The president celebrated the decision in a post on Truth Social Thursday night, calling it a "BIG WIN."
"All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," Trump wrote.
'Not a king'
The state of California had argued that Trump's order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor.
The judges said Trump's "failure to issue the federalization order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard."
But they said the panel disagreed with the defendants' primary argument that the president's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard "is completely insulated from judicial review."
Governor Newsom responded to the decision saying Trump "is not a king and not above the law."
"Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," he posted on X.
"We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked."
California is not without options. The state could request the case to be reheard or it could petition the Supreme Court for intervention.
Immigration tensions
The ruling comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in Los Angeles, which has become ground zero of Trump's immigration crackdown across the United States.
The city has seen scattered violence but mostly peaceful protests in recent weeks, ignited by an escalation in federal immigration sweeps that have targeted migrant workers in garment factories, car washes and other workplaces.
Local media reported further raids across the city on Thursday targeting Home Depot stores, a home improvement retailer where day laborers often gather in parking lots seeking work.
The protests, though largely peaceful, saw sporadic and spectacular violence. Damage included vandalism, looting, clashes with law enforcement and several torched driverless taxis.
Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president's decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles was "illegal."
Trump, who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest, also sent 700 US Marines to Los Angeles despite the objections of local officials, claiming that they had lost control of the "burning" city.
It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor.
Trump appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, and former president Joe Biden appointed the third, the New York Times reported Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
US sanctions target those providing Iran with defense machinery, Houthi oil trading
The Trump administration said on Friday it had issued fresh Iran-related sanctions targeting eight entities, one vessel and one person for their alleged role in providing sensitive machinery for Tehran's defense industry. 'The United States remains resolved to disrupt any effort by Iran to procure the sensitive, dual-use technology, components, and machinery that underpin the regime's ballistic missile, unmanned aerial vehicle, and asymmetric weapons programs,' US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. 'Treasury will continue to degrade Iran's ability to produce and proliferate these deadly weapons, which threaten regional stability and global security,' he added in a statement announcing the action. Two of the entities include shipping companies based in Hong Kong: Unico Shipping Co. Ltd and Athena Shipping Co. Ltd, the statement said. The Treasury Department on Friday also issued counterterrorism-related sanctions targeting Yemen's Iran-aligned Houthis over alleged illicit oil trading and shipping, it said in a separate statement. Those sanctions target four individuals, 12 entities, and two vessels over imported oil and other illicit goods to support the Houthis, the department said.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Supreme Court Revives Lawsuits Against Palestinian Authorities From US Victims of Terrorism Attacks
The Supreme Court on Friday revived long-running lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from Americans who were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks in the Middle East. The justices upheld a 2019 law enacted by Congress specifically to allow the victims' lawsuits to go forward against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The attacks occurred in the early 2000s, killing 33 people and wounding hundreds more, and in 2018 when a US-born settler was stabbed to death by a Palestinian assailant outside a mall in the West Bank. The victims and their families assert that Palestinian agents either were involved in the attacks or incited them. The Palestinians have consistently argued that the cases shouldn't be allowed in American courts. The federal appeals court in New York has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, despite Congress' efforts to allow the victims' lawsuits to be heard. The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals first ruled in 2016 against the victims of the attacks from 20 years ago, tossing out a $654 million jury verdict in their favor. In that earlier ruling, the appeals court held US courts can't consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the US. The victims had sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act signed into law in 1992. The law was passed to open US courts to victims of international terrorism, spurred by the killing of American Leon Klinghoffer during a 1985 terrorist attack aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship. The jury found the PLO and the Palestinian Authority liable for six attacks and awarded $218 million in damages. The award was automatically tripled under the law. After the Supreme Court rejected the victims' appeal in 2018, Congress again amended the law to make clear it did not want to close the courthouse door to the victims.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Judge Rules Trump Administration Can't Require States to Help on Immigration to Get Transport Money
A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. US District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode Island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs–or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island US Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.
