Latest news with #NinthCircuit
The Hill
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump touts ruling on National Guard in LA
President Trump touted a 'big win' Friday morning in his fight with California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over control of the state's National Guard, which Trump federalized earlier this month in response to protests against his immigration raids. A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday the president could retain control of the state's National Guard for the time being. 'BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but 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,' he added. Newsom argued Trump's decision to federalize soldiers without consulting him was illegal and asked the courts for an emergency order to block the move. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, initially ruled in California's favor, but the emergency injunction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit on June 13. The three-judge panel unanimously extended its pause in an unsigned, 38-page decision released Thursday night. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. 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,' the appeals panel wrote. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Responding to the Thursday night ruling, Newsom said 'This fight doesn't end here' in a post on X. '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. The President is not a king and is not above the law,' he wrote. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he added. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. Breyer is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer, in his initial ruling, ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' he wrote. 'Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) said the president was using soldiers as 'props' in a city where they are not needed. 'We need to remember who makes up the National Guard and the Marines — young men and women, pulled from their homes, families, and education, to do NOTHING,' she wrote in a Friday post on X.
New York Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Juneteenth Goes Uncelebrated by White House as President Grouses About Holidays
A federal appeals court on Thursday cleared the way for President Trump to keep using the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles, declaring that a judge in San Francisco erred last week when he ordered Mr. Trump to return control of the troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California. In a unanimous, 38-page ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the conditions in Los Angeles were sufficient for Mr. Trump to decide that he needed to take federal control of California's National Guard and deploy it to ensure that federal immigration laws would be enforced. A lower-court judge had concluded that the protests were not severe enough for Mr. Trump to use a rarely-triggered law to federalize the National Guard over Mr. Newsom's objections. But the panel, which included two appointees of Mr. Trump and one of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., disagreed with the lower court. 'Affording appropriate deference to the president's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard,' the court wrote, in an unsigned opinion on behalf of the entire panel. The ruling was not a surprise. During a 65-minute hearing on Tuesday, the panel's questions and statements had telegraphed that all three judges — Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller and Jennifer Sung — were inclined to let Mr. Trump keep controlling the Guard for now, while litigation continues to play out over California's challenge to his move. Mr. Trump praised the decision, saying in a Truth Social post late Thursday that it supported his argument for using the National Guard 'all over the United States' if local law enforcement can't 'get the job done.' Mr. Newsom, in a response on Thursday, focused on how the appeals court had rejected the Trump administration's argument that a president's decision to federalize the National Guard could not be reviewed by a judge. 'The president is not a king and is not above the law,' Mr. Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The Trump administration had urged the appeals court to find that the judiciary could not review Mr. Trump's decision to take control of a state's National Guard under the statute he invoked, which sets conditions like if there is a rebellion against governmental authority that impedes the enforcement of federal law. The appeals court declined to go that far. 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,' the appeals court wrote. But, the judges said, the violent actions of some protesters in Los Angeles had hindered immigration enforcement, and that was sufficient for the judiciary to defer to Mr. Trump's decision to invoke the call-up statute. The appeals court also rejected the state's contention that the call-up order was illegal because Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, sent the directive to a general in charge of the National Guard, even though the statute says any such edict must go 'through' the governor. The court said the general was Governor Newsom's agent, and that was good enough. 'Even if there were a procedural violation, that would not justify the scope of relief provided by the district court's' order stripping Mr. Trump of control of the guard, the ruling added. The state could choose to ask the full appeals court to rehear the matter, or it could directly ask the Supreme Court to intervene. But the state might also just move on from the current part of the dispute, since the ruling on Thursday pertains to a short-lived temporary restraining order that will soon be obsolete anyway. Either way, litigation in the case is set to return on Friday to the San Francisco courtroom of a Federal District Court judge, Charles Breyer, for a hearing. He is weighing whether to issue a more durable preliminary injunction restricting what Mr. Trump can do with some 4,000 National Guard troops or 700 active-duty Marines his administration has also deployed into the city. Judge Breyer's temporary restraining order concerned only the National Guard and whether it was lawful for Mr. Trump to mobilize them under federal control. At the hearing on Friday, he is also set to address a state request to limit troops under federal control to guarding federal buildings, and to bar them from accompanying Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on the workplace raids that sparked the protests. That request centers on a 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that generally makes it illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement. The Trump administration has argued that the troops are not themselves performing law enforcement tasks, but rather are protecting civilian agents who are trying to arrest undocumented migrants. Mr. Hegseth suggested that he might not obey a ruling from the lower court, telling senators on the Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that he doesn't 'believe district courts should be setting national security policy.' Conditions in Los Angeles have calmed significantly over the past week, and Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles announced on Tuesday that she was ending the downtown curfew, a week after it had first been imposed. She said local law enforcement efforts have been 'largely successful' at reimposing order. California officials have said from the beginning that local and state police could handle the protesters, and that Mr. Trump's decision to send in federal troops only inflamed matters. But speaking with reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he felt empowered to send troops anywhere violent protests erupt. 'We did a great job. We quelled that thing,' the president said of the demonstrations in Los Angeles. 'And the fact that we are even there thinking about going in, they won't bother with it anymore. They'll go someplace else. But we'll be there, too. We'll be wherever they go.' Greg Jaffe contributed reporting.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Trump declares 'big win' against Newsom, citing Governor's failings
Donald Trump celebrated a victory over Gavin Newsom after an appeals allowed him to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles to handle anti-ICE riots. Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard!' 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but 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,' he added. 'This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!' The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor´s permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters `pinned down´ several federal officers and threw `concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects´ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van´s windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government´s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president´s order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that '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.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. '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,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump´s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president´s power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to descend on the city in an effort to quell days-long chaos amid ICE raids targeting illegal migrants. Soon after, Trump took to his Truth Social and applauded the National Guard for stepping in to control 'these radical left protests,' while also calling out Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass for being 'unable to handle the task.' 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest. We have an incompetent Governor (Newscum) and Mayor (Bass) who were, as usual (just look at how they handled the fires, and now their VERY SLOW PERMITTING disaster. Federal permitting is complete!), unable to to handle the task,' the president wrote. 'These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will NOT BE TOLERATED. Also, from now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why??? Again, thank you to the National Guard for a job well done!' Trump argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump´s command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can´t second guess the president´s decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. Trump has pledged to deport record numbers of people in the country illegally and lock down the US-Mexico border, with the White House setting a goal for ICE to arrest at least 3,000 migrants per day. But the sweeping immigration crackdown has also included people legally residing in the country, including some with permanent residence, and has led to legal challenges. Los Angeles, the second-most populous city in the United States, is one of the most diverse metropolises in the country.
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump Can Retain Control Of National Guard In LA, Appeals Court Rules
A federal appeals court on Thursday night ruled that the California National Guard troops—deployed in Los Angeles last week amid protests against the federal government's crackdown on immigrants—can remain under President Donald Trump's control while the state's legal challenge against the deployment moves forward. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that on matters such as federalizing the California National Guard, any decision must be 'highly deferential' towards the president, and the court concluded that ' it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority.' However, the ruling disagreed with the White House's primary argument that such a matter 'is completely insulated from judicial review.' The appellate court ruling blocks an already paused ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer that ordered the president to 'return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.' The ruling only focused on the issue of presidential authority and did not address the claim made in Trump's order that the protests amounted to a 'form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement saying, 'While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government's appeal, this case is far from over…our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing.' Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X: '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. The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president hailed the ruling as a 'BIG WIN,' and attacked the California Governor, saying: 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared.' Trump then signaled he could deploy forces to tackle protests in other states, saying: '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.' The appeals court ruling noted that precedent from earlier rulings cited by the Trump administration, '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.' Trump Keeps Control Of National Guard In Los Angeles After Appeals Court Pauses Ruling (Forbes)
Fox News
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
California Governor Gavin Newsom claims 'Trump is not a king' after crucial National Guard control case
Governor Gavin Newsom said in an official statement that he is disappointed in the Ninth Circuit Court's decision to allow President Trump to retain control of the California National Guard, but is touting one aspect of the court ruling as a victory. Writing on X early Friday morning, the Democratic governor proclaimed that Trump is "not a king and not above the law." "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. The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens," he went on to say in a press statement later. The court rejected Trump's claims that he can federalize the California National Guard at will and still avoid judicial scrutiny, the governor noted. "The Ninth Circuit rejected Trump's sweeping claim that he can federalize the National Guard for any reason and avoid judicial scrutiny, even as it stayed an emergency district court order. This is a critical check on presidential overreach and confirmation that the President is not above the law," Newsom's press office stated. Newsom's office said that both Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta remain committed to holding the president accountable for using the military as domestic law enforcement – actions, they argued, were in violation of federal law. Although Newsom says the ruling is a win, there is still an ongoing conflict as the unanimous ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday allowed President Trump to keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles earlier this month to quell riots during demonstrations against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In the filing, the court stated that they believed the president had made a lawful decision. Even though the president failed to notify the governor before deploying the National Guard as required by law, the court cited that Newsom had no power to veto the president's order.
