Latest news with #Section12406
Straits Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Appeals court questions judges' ability to review Trump's Los Angeles troop deployment
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Marines stand watch as people protest against U.S. President Donald Trump's policies and federal immigration sweeps during a No Kings Day demonstration in Los Angeles, California, U.S., June 14, 2025. REUTERS/David Ryder/File Photo Members of a federal appeals court questioned during a hearing on Tuesday what role courts should have in reviewing President Donald Trump's authority to deploy the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles amid protests and civil unrest. The three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the Trump administration's bid to extend a pause it issued last week on U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling that the president had called the National Guard into service unlawfully. The panel members pressed lawyers for the administration and the state of California on whether courts could review Trump's decision at all. Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate told the panel that Breyer had "improperly second-guessed the president's judgment" about the need to call up the National Guard in order to protect federal property and personnel from "mob violence" in Los Angeles. "There is no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision," Shumate said. 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 a city in the midst of protest and turmoil over the president's immigration raids. U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, suggested on Tuesday that Breyer's initial ruling may have gone too far and could improperly prevent a president from exercising his discretion in an emergency situation. 'Even if we were to agree with you that there is some limited role of judicial review, how can that test be met here?' Bennett asked California's attorney, Samuel Harbourt. Bennett and U.S. Circuit Judge Jennifer Sung, who was appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden, separately asked Harbourt to address a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that states 'the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president.' Harbourt said the 1827 decision did not apply to the case because it involved different circumstances and it came before Congress passed Section 12406 of Title 10, a law allowing the president to take control of the National Guard to address rebellions or invasions, which Trump cited when deploying the troops. The 9th Circuit panel, which also included Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, did not issue a ruling on Tuesday. But Bennett suggested that the court could act before a hearing that Breyer has scheduled in the case for Friday. Breyer, in San Francisco, had ruled last week that Trump unlawfully took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom. Trump also ordered 700 U.S. Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard, but Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marines' mobilization. Breyer said Trump had not complied with requirements of Title 10, and ordered Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom, who sued over the deployment. The administration argues that the law gives the president sole discretion to determine whether a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" requires a military response, and that neither the courts nor a state governor can second-guess that determination. But, Harbourt said Section 12406 requires both dire circumstances such as a rebellion or invasion to exist, and consultation with a state's governor - and none of those conditions were met. Shumate disagreed, saying that Trump alone has the authority to determine whether the National Guard should be called in, and his failure to include Newsom in the decision was at most a "technical violation" of the statute. "The governor is merely a conduit, not a roadblock or a core executive, when the president decides it's necessary to call out the Guard," Shumate said. California's lawsuit, filed on June 9, argues that Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violate 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 that they were instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Harbourt urged the panel on Tuesday to let Breyer's ruling go into effect. Further pausing the ruling would "profoundly injure the state of California and our nation more generally." "It would allow defendants to further escalate tensions and the risk of violence in the city of Los Angeles," Harbourt said. "And it would defy our constitutional traditions of preserving state sovereignty, of providing judicial review for the legality of executive action, of safeguarding our cherished rights to political protest and of keeping the military." Shumate said that the lower court ruling should be blocked, because it undermined Trump's authority under the U.S. Constitution over the military and his ability to respond to national emergencies. He said troops were doing important work defending ICE agents. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
When can the U.S. President deploy military on U.S. soil?
The story so far: Widespread protests have erupted in Los Angeles, California, after raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) led to dozens of arrests. In response, U.S. President Donald Trump has deployed about 4,000 national guard troops and 700 marines. Can military be deployed in U.S.? Military troops, including national guard units, are barred from civilian law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), unless explicitly authorised by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. Such authorisation is provided through the Insurrection Act which permits the President to deploy the military during civil unrest. This can be done at a State's request, or unilaterally to enforce federal law, suppress rebellion, or protect civil rights when a State government is unwilling or unable to act. Notably, unlike other U.S. military branches, the national guard can be deployed by both the States and the federal government. They respond to domestic emergencies, overseas combat missions, counter-drug efforts, and more. Each of the 50 U.S. States maintains its own unit, which typically reports to its respective State Governors and is thus exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. However, when 'federalised' (called into federal service), these Guards temporarily become part of the 'federal armed forces' and are subject to the said Act until returned to State control. How has it been used in the past? U.S. Presidents have long deployed the national guard for civil unrest, but federalising it to support law enforcement directly against protests began only in 1967. The guard's federalised role expanded in the Civil Rights era, during protests for school desegregation, and the 1965 Selma-Montgomery March. Subsequently, President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed them for the 1967 Detroit Rebellion and after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination in 1968. Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush have also deployed them during various instances. Is the Governor's consent necessary? Mr. Trump's memorandum, instead of invoking the Insurrection Act, likely due to its widely recognised abuse potential, cites Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. This provision allows the President to call national guard members into 'federal service', under certain circumstances, including rebellion against federal authority. Traditionally, Presidents have used Section 12406 as the procedural mechanism along with the Insurrection Act's substantive powers, invoking both to justify deployment. Interestingly, Mr. Trump has attempted to decouple these authorities. In federalising and deploying the national guard, he appears to rely either on Section 12406 as a standalone power or pair it with claimed 'inherent' constitutional authority (Article II of the Constitution), citing his Presidential duty to protect federal personnel, property, and functions. For active-duty military deployment, he seems to lean solely on inherent constitutional power, as Section 12406 does not authorise using active-duty armed forces for such purposes. However, this employed legal framework lacks the 'unambiguous authority' that the Insurrection Act provides to engage troops. Under Title 10, the President's authority to deploy the national guard without the Governor's consent is ambiguous — while the first part of the provision allows federalisation, another mandates that orders 'shall be issued through the governors'. On June 9, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom sued President Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, calling the unilateral federalisation of California's national guard an 'unlawful' overreach. How does it work in India? Article 355 of the Constitution mandates the Union to protect States against 'external aggression' and 'internal disturbance'. This allows the Centre to deploy the army even without a State's request. While 'public order' is a State subject, the Union can deploy armed forces to aid 'civil power' under Entry 2A of List I. In Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. versus Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court held that armed forces deployment supplements, not supplants, a State's continuing civil power. Crucially, deployment must be withdrawn once normalcy is restored; normalcy not being restored cannot serve as a fig leaf for prolonged, indefinite, or permanent military presence. Kartikey Singh is a lawyer based in Delhi.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California
Remarkable images are emerging of Marines training and National Guardsmen armed with rifles accompanying ICE agents on raids in Los Angeles. It's a scene President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say can be replicated in any other American city where there are protests against the administration's immigration crackdown. It's also raising a host of legal questions regarding what Trump can and can't do with regards to the military on U.S. soil, and whether he's crossing the line. A first hearing on some of these issues is set for Thursday as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, challenges the federal deployment and seeks emergency relief. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The statute allows the president to call on federal service members when there "is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. MORE: What is the Insurrection Act, and what happens if Trump uses it to quell LA protests? Trump, however, did not invoke the Insurrection Act -- a clear exception to the mandates of the Posse Comitatus Act, the law that limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement. "Instead, he's using authorities in a very novel way," Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center, said on ABC News Live. Goitein noted how broad Trump's memorandum is in nature, saying it's not limited to Los Angeles and allows for troops to be sent anywhere protests "are likely to occur." "This is a preemptive, nationwide, potentially, deployment of the federal military to effectively police protests. It is unheard of in this country," Goitein said. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary, and did so illegally. Newsom argues the situation, which has been relatively confined to a few square blocks in downtown Los Angeles, doesn't justify the use of Section 12406 in Title 10. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together. And nothing is stopping the President from enforcing the laws through use of ordinary, civilian mechanisms available to federal officers," the state contended in an emergency motion. The state's lawsuit also lambasts Trump for bypassing the governor and local leaders who objected to the mobilization of the National Guard and active duty Marines. However, some legal experts say Section 12406 in Title 10 does not on its face require a request from the governor. There is also precedent for the president sending in the National Guard without governor support: in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest in the South without cooperation from state leaders. "If this ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, I don't think they're going to find that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard troops," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. "A different issue is if these federalized troops, either National Guard or Marines, cross the line into law enforcement and therefore violate Posse Comitatus," she said. National Guard members joining ICE on raids marks a significant escalation, she said. "It's getting dangerously close to law enforcement," VanLandingham said. MORE: US military can temporarily detain protesters in Los Angeles, commander says California made that argument in its emergency motion. "Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles," the motion states. "They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians." The Trump administration has steadfastly defended the moves and is urging a federal judge to block California's request for a temporary restraining order. "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," lawyers with the Department of Justice said in a court filing. The DOJ lawyers argued that California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. ABC News' Peter Charalambous contributed to this report. Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California originally appeared on
12-06-2025
- Politics
Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California
Remarkable images are emerging of Marines training and National Guardsmen armed with rifles accompanying ICE agents on raids in Los Angeles. It's a scene President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say can be replicated in any other American city where there are protests against the administration's immigration crackdown. It's also raising a host of legal questions regarding what Trump can and can't do with regards to the military on U.S. soil, and whether he's crossing the line. A first hearing on some of these issues is set for Thursday as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, challenges the federal deployment and seeks emergency relief. How Trump mobilized the troops To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The statute allows the president to call on federal service members when there "is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. Trump, however, did not invoke the Insurrection Act -- a clear exception to the mandates of the Posse Comitatus Act, the law that limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement. "Instead, he's using authorities in a very novel way," Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center, said on ABC News Live. Goitein noted how broad Trump's memorandum is in nature, saying it's not limited to Los Angeles and allows for troops to be sent anywhere protests "are likely to occur." "This is a preemptive, nationwide, potentially, deployment of the federal military to effectively police protests. It is unheard of in this country," Goitein said. California seeks emergency relief California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary, and did so illegally. Newsom argues the situation, which has been relatively confined to a few square blocks in downtown Los Angeles, doesn't justify the use of Section 12406 in Title 10. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together. And nothing is stopping the President from enforcing the laws through use of ordinary, civilian mechanisms available to federal officers," the state contended in an emergency motion. The state's lawsuit also lambasts Trump for bypassing the governor and local leaders who objected to the mobilization of the National Guard and active duty Marines. However, some legal experts say Section 12406 in Title 10 does not on its face require a request from the governor. There is also precedent for the president sending in the National Guard without governor support: in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest in the South without cooperation from state leaders. Immigration raids raise more questions "If this ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, I don't think they're going to find that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard troops," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. "A different issue is if these federalized troops, either National Guard or Marines, cross the line into law enforcement and therefore violate Posse Comitatus," she said. National Guard members joining ICE on raids marks a significant escalation, she said. "It's getting dangerously close to law enforcement," VanLandingham said. California made that argument in its emergency motion. "Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles," the motion states. "They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians." The Trump administration has steadfastly defended the moves and is urging a federal judge to block California's request for a temporary restraining order. "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," lawyers with the Department of Justice said in a court filing. The DOJ lawyers argued that California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's National Guard lawsuit against Trump has a big problem
After President Donald Trump deployed the California National Guard into Los Angeles over the weekend against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state is fighting back. Attorney General Rob Bonta announced California is suing the administration, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to federalize the National Guard in this case and was infringing on state sovereignty. Trump's decision to send in the National Guard may be morally (and politically) problematic. The difficulty facing California's lawsuit is that federal law appears to give not just President Trump, but any president, broad authority to federalize the National Guard, whether or not a governor wants him to do so. The primary legal question is whether the Trump administration had the power to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor. The presidential memorandum Trump issued Saturday deploying the National Guard invoked a little-used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The power that Section 12406 confers on presidents is broad but not unlimited. It gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard when there is 'a rebellion or danger of rebellion' against federal authority, or when the president cannot, using the usual mechanisms, execute federal laws. Once the National Guard arrives, however, it can only support other law enforcement officers. They can help to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal property, but they cannot, for instance, perform searches and seizures. Why such limits? Because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances. And Section 12406 does not suspend the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act. To invoke his authority under Section 12406, Trump concluded that, '[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California has argued that there is no such rebellion. One problem for the state's lawsuit is that there is of course no settled definition of what a rebellion is. In addition, federal judges tend to defer to presidents when it comes to questions of national security. Federal judges, who are not chosen by voters, are generally wary of second-guessing the judgment of an elected president when it comes to questions of whether or not we are in danger of a rebellion. California also argues that because Section 12406 requires that orders to federalize the National Guard be issued 'through the governors,' that means that a president cannot take this action against the wishes of the state's governor. However, the plain language of the statute does not include an explicit requirement of a governor's consent. In addition, reading such a requirement into the statute would provide any state governor with veto power over a president's decision under this federal law. That hardly seems consistent with congressional intent. Finally, California argues that Trump's actions violate the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. But the plain terms of Section 12406 do appear to give the president the power to federalize the National Guard. The legal landscape would change significantly if the president tries to invoke his power under the Insurrection Act. If he does, the protections in the Posse Comitatus Act are suspended, and the National Guard, and other branches of the military, can act to directly enforce domestic law. We are not there yet, but if Trump takes that step, it would be a dramatic escalation of an already historic standoff between the federal government and the state. This article was originally published on
