Latest news with #Breyer
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
US appeals court rules Trump retains control of California National Guard
demonstrator raises his hand holding flowers as members of the National Guard stand in formation outside a federal building during the No Kings protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. Photo; REUTERS/ Listen to article A US appeals court let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most populous city. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on US District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding that his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and US Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. This fight doesn't end here. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 20, 2025 "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against our citizens." Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because 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." Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated a US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It 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 had 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 Newsom's wishes. Trump also ordered 700 US 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 on Tuesday 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 by 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 appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalized property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines that an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit California said Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US 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.
Roya News
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Roya News
Appeals court allows Trump to keep control of California National Guard
A US federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump may retain authority over California's National Guard, at least temporarily, as a legal challenge by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom continues. The decision, handed down by a three-judge panel from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, extends a freeze on a lower court ruling that found Trump had overstepped his legal authority when he federalized the state's National Guard to respond to unrest in Los Angeles. The legal dispute began after US District Judge Charles Breyer ruled on June 12 that Trump's June 7, 2020, decision to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles violated federal law. Breyer found that Trump failed to coordinate with the state governor and did not meet the legal criteria that allow a president to assume control over state troops, such as an invasion or rebellion. 'The conditions set out under the statute to allow this move… did not exist,' Breyer concluded in his ruling, ordering Trump to relinquish command back to Newsom. However, within hours, the appeals court temporarily blocked that order and has now extended the pause. The case stems from a June 9 lawsuit filed by California, which argued that Trump's decision infringed on state sovereignty and contradicted laws prohibiting federal military involvement in civilian law enforcement. The state emphasized that while the protests in Los Angeles included scattered violence, they did not amount to a 'rebellion,' and local authorities were capable of managing the situation. The deployment of federal troops, including 700 US Marines sent after the National Guard, sparked a nationwide debate about the domestic use of the military. While the Trump administration insists the troops are not involved in law enforcement, California officials argue otherwise, especially in the context of immigration raids that inflamed tensions. At a recent hearing, the 9th Circuit panel, which includes two Trump appointees and one appointed by former President Biden, questioned the extent to which courts should intervene in presidential decisions related to military deployments. The Department of Justice has maintained that a president's decision to federalize the National Guard in an emergency is not subject to judicial or gubernatorial review.
Miami Herald
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Appeals court halts ruling forcing Trump to return CA Guard to Newsom's control
A federal appeals court late Thursday temporarily blocked a judge's order that required President Donald Trump to relinquish control of California's National Guard, pausing a sweeping rebuke of the administration's decision to deploy troops to Los Angeles over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court's ruling, which had found Trump's use of National Guard and Marine personnel after federal immigration raids violated both statutory limits and the 10th Amendment. The stay will remain in effect at least through a scheduled hearing next week. Hours before, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had given the Trump administration until noon Friday to relinquish control of the Guard, a rare and sweeping judicial repudiation of the administration's unprecedented use of military personnel to support deportation operations amid immigration protests in the south state. 'The court must determine whether the president followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,' Breyer wrote in a 36-page decision granting Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order. 'He did not.' 'His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States,' Breyer added. Breyer, who expressed skepticism during oral arguments earlier in the day, concluded the Trump administration had failed to prove 'a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.' 'The definition of rebellion is unmet,' Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote. Attorneys for the White House immediately requested an emergency stay at the appellate level, which was granted by the three-judge panel. Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller and Lucy H. Koh ordered the halt and set a hearing for Tuesday. Bennett and Miller were appointed by Trump during his first term; Koh was elevated to the 9th Circuit by Biden in 2022. The legal back-and-forth set the stage for a high-stakes clash over executive power and states' rights, with Newsom casting the ruling as a pivotal moment for democratic accountability. 'Today's order makes clear that (Trump) is not above or beyond constitutional constraints,' Newsom said moments after the District Court's ruling from Los Angeles, 'Constitution sets forth limits; the president is a constitutional officer. The President of the United States works under the Constitution. And so we are very gratified by this decision. ... Clearly, there's no invasion, there's no rebellion. It's absurd. And so we're gratified. Today is a big day for the Constitution of the United States, for our democracy. And I hope it's the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach.' Newsom also addressed the potential of an appellate hold. 'I'm confident in the rule of law. I'm confident in the Constitution of the United States. I'm confident in the wisdom and judgment of a very well-respected federal judge. And I'm confident, on the basis of the review of the 36 pages – absolutely it will stand,' he said. Trump thanked the panel for its decision, saying in a social media post, 'The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn't send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A.' Breyer's ruling on Thursday came after a heated hearing in federal court, at which lawyers for Newsom argued that the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids was unlawful — a claim strongly disputed by White House attorneys. The hearing was part of a lawsuit filed by Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday against Trump's move to deploy the Guard and Marines to the nation's second-largest city without the governor's approval. 'It is not the federal government's place in our constitutional system to take over a state's police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws,' Breyer wrote. Although Breyer said in his ruling that the deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles also was in conflict with the 10th Amendment, he did not order Trump to remove them in part because they were not in L.A. but training in Orange County. The hearing took place against a backdrop of ongoing tensions in Los Angeles, where Trump has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines, a move that legal experts said was highly unusual and based on laws that could be interpreted in different ways. Protests began on Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents swarmed a local Home Depot store, arresting day laborers, and raided businesses in the city's largely immigrant garment district. The city has been under a nightly curfew since Tuesday night, when Mayor Karen Bass said it was necessary to stop vandalism and looting. On Thursday, Alex Padilla, one of California's two U.S. Senators, was forcibly removed from a press conference given by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, forced to kneel and then lie on the ground before being handcuffed. Newsom has blamed Trump for fanning the protests and violence, saying both the immigration raids and the activation of troops were deliberately provocative in a city where a third of the residents are immigrants. On Tuesday, he filed the request for a temporary restraining order, asking the judge to immediately limit the military's activities to support roles: protecting federal property and personnel. Newsom said in a court filing on Thursday that troops had moved beyond those allowable duties to actively assist ICE agents in making arrests, in violation of a federal law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which is designed to prevent the military from being used as a domestic police force. At the hearing on Thursday, Breyer questioned the Trump administration's lawyers sharply on whether the president had followed the law when taking over control of the Guard over Newsom's objections. In particular, he asked Assistant U.S. Attorney General Brett Shumate about a clause in the law that says orders to federalize the National Guard 'shall' come through the governors of the states. He also pressed the administration on its claim that even if Trump had not adhered to conditions laid out in the law for federalizing the National Guard, the courts don't have the jurisdiction to overturn his decision because the president has the discretion to interpret those conditions in his own way. He appeared to show some sympathy to Newsom's point of view when he asked California Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Green to address the question of Trump's discretion. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said, referring to the British monarch against whom the American Revolution was fought. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes' the truth. But he questioned Green about Newsom's argument that the court had jurisdiction over what he called speculative concerns about how Trump might use the Marines, which are already under federal control. Much of the discussion at the hearing revolved around the law invoked by Trump when he activated the military in Los Angeles, which limits his power to do so unless there is an invasion, a rebellion, or the president is unable to enforce the laws of the United States. In documents submitted to the court this week, the president's lawyers argued that such conditions did exist in Los Angeles, making the deployments legal. Moreover, they argued that the federal government was following the law by limiting such military intervention to protection of federal property and personnel. But in his claim, Newsom alleges that Trump broke laws against the domestic deployment of military troops without consent from the state's governor. Newsom said he did not approve of the deployment and did not request it. He pointed to a clause in the law that says orders to deploy the National Guard by the federal government must be made through the governors of the states. Trump's lawyers argued for a different interpretation of the statute, saying it required the order to go through the governor or a representative, but not be made by the governor, court documents show. In this case, they argued, the order went through a top commander at the California National Guard, who responded to the president's directive. Breyer disagreed, saying in his ruling that California officials and 'the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life.' In his ruling, the judge harshly criticized the White House for attempting to justify the Guard deployment after the fact. Breyer warned that 'the federal executive could unilaterally exercise military force in a domestic context and then be allowed to backfill justifications for doing so' — a precedent he labeled dangerous. Ultimately, the judge found Trump's takeover of the Guard violated the 10th Amendment by undermining state sovereignty. The court said Trump lacked both legal justification and procedural authority, rejecting the idea that immigration protests amounted to a 'rebellion' and calling the deployment an illegal federal overreach. 'To put a finer point on it,' Breyer wrote, 'the federal government cannot be permitted to exceed its bounds and in doing so create the very emergency conditions that it then relies on to justify federal intervention.' In a court filing, Newsom and Bonta criticized the appellate stay as 'unnecessary and unwarranted,' citing what they called Breyer's 'extensive reasoning' and his conclusion that California faced irreparable harm without immediate relief. They also questioned the timing of Tuesday's appellate hearing, noting it falls just before Breyer's hearing the following Friday on a preliminary injunction. A White House spokesperson told the Associated Press on Friday that Trump acted within his powers and that the original injunction 'puts our brave federal officials in danger. The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief.'
Straits Times
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now
FILE PHOTO: A demonstrator raises his hand holding flowers as members of the National Guard stand in formation outside a federal building during the No Kings protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo US court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard for now WASHINGTON - A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. 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 tension in the country's second most-populous city. On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding that his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and U.S. Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.s. military soldiers against our citizens." Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because 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." Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Newsom. Breyer ruled that Trump violated a U.S. law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It 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 had put the judge's move on hold 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 Newsom's wishes. 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 on Tuesday 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 by 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 appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalized property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines that an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit California said 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 Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying 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. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
US court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A U.S. appeals court let Donald Trump on Thursday 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 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 ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Trump's action brought by Governor 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 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 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 a court hearing on Tuesday 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden.
