Latest news with #TenthAmendment
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Trump Maintains Control of National Guard in L.A.: What the Appeals Court Said About His Authority
President Donald Trump can maintain control of the California National Guard, a federal appeals court has ruled, overturning an earlier decision that found the President's mobilization of the troops was 'illegal.' The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is temporary, but allows the President to continue directing the thousands of National Guard members he has deployed to Los Angeles to quell multi-day protests over the Administration's immigration policy. Their deployment was subject to a lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued the President violated the Tenth Amendment, which lays out the powers of state and the federal government. Seven hundred Marines have also been sent to L.A. The unanimous opinion, delivered by a three-panel judge panel made up of two Trump appointees and another appointed by President Joe Biden, reversed a lower court decision that found Trump did not satisfy the requirements necessary for the President to call in the National Guard under the law he invoked. Trump celebrated the appeals court's ruling on his social media platform, Truth Social. '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,' Trump wrote late Thursday. Though it ruled in Trump's favor, the court also rejected an argument from the Administration that the National Guard deployment could not be reviewed, however. Newsom applauded that part of the decision, and noted that litigation regarding the matter will continue. '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 in a post on X. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' Here's what the appeals court said about Trump's power to deploy the National Guard. Trump "likely acted within his authority" The Ninth Circuit's ruling found that the President likely 'lawfully exercised his statutory authority' in invoking Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. Under that statute, the President has the power to invoke the National Guard if he cannot execute laws with 'regular forces,' or if an invasion or rebellion is underway or at risk. The Trump Administration claimed in court filings that there was 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States.' The judges, however, said that the 'protests in Los Angeles fall short of rebellion,' though they pointed to the unrest in Los Angeles and risk to federal officials and property. They called Newsom's concerns about how the presence of the National Guard could escalate tensions between protesters and law enforcement 'too speculative.' The judges also responded to Newsom's assertion that his lack of involvement in the deployment of the troops made Trump's actions illegal. The court found that the Secretary of Defense's 'transmittal of the order' to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, who can issue orders in name of the Governor, satisfied the procedural requirements necessary to send in the National Guard. The President's decisions to deploy the National Guard are not above review The federal government argued that Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard was 'unreviewable' by the court system because the statute the President used empowered him to mobilize it in 'such numbers as he considers necessary.' In the ruling, the judges said that they should be 'highly deferential' to the President, but also denied the assertion that the federalization of the National Guard is 'completely insulated from judicial review.'
The Hill
a day 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.
4 days ago
- Politics
Federal appeals court set to hold hearing over Trump National Guard deployment in California
The legal battle over the Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard in California heads to a federal appeals court on Tuesday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will preside over a remote hearing regarding California's challenge to President Donald Trump 's federalization of the state's National Guard troops amid protests over immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area. Last week, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order that would have blocked Trump's deployment of the troops and returned control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not consent to the Guard's activation. However, following an appeal by the Trump administration, a panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court's order, dealing the Trump administration a temporary reprieve to what would have been a major reversal of its policy on the protests in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel -- made up of two judges nominated by Trump and one nominated by former President Joe Biden -- scheduled the hearing on the matter for Tuesday afternoon. The district judge's order called Trump's actions "illegal." "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in his June 12 order granting the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom. "His actions were illegal -- both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." The order did not limit Trump's use of the Marines, which had also been deployed to LA. In a press conference after the district court's order, Newsom said he was "gratified" by the ruling, saying he would return the National Guard "to what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them." In its appeal to the Ninth Circuit, administration lawyers called the district judge's order "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary intrusion on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief." Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Democracy under siege: Trump's war comes home to Los Angeles
Debashis Chakrabarti is a political columnist, Commonwealth Fellow (UK), and internationally recognized academic whose career bridges journalism, policy, and higher education leadership. A former journalist with The Indian Express, he brings the precision of investigative reporting to his political analysis and scholarly work. He has served as Professor and Dean at leading institutions across the UK, India, Africa, and the Middle East, with expertise in media studies, political communication, and governance. LESS ... MORE When the bootsteps of US Marines echo through the streets of Los Angeles—not in defence of the nation, but deployed against its own people—history shudders. What we are witnessing is not merely a flashpoint in American politics, but the tremor of a collapsing democratic compact. President Donald Trump has crossed a Rubicon, not in service of security, but in a calculated, authoritarian bid to redefine dissent as insurrection. This is not a drill. This is not merely political brinkmanship. A constitutional reckoning is underway—and the world is watching. The tanks are not just rolling—they are redrawing the map of American power In a stark echo of history's most troubling precedents, US Marines and National Guard troops now patrol not distant battlefields, but the streets of American cities. The pretext: a crackdown on protests following mass immigration raids, executed with mechanical cruelty. But peel back the rhetoric about 'national sovereignty' and 'foreign lawlessness,' and what remains is a naked attempt to militarize policy failure and crush democratic expression. In Los Angeles, over 2,000 troops, including 700 active-duty Marines, were stationed in proximity to protest sites. Their stated mission: to 'protect federal property.' But their real function was symbolic—the projection of raw power, of martial discipline, of command from above. Curfews were imposed, hundreds arrested, and images of troops 'accompanying' ICE agents into Latino neighborhoods sent a singular message: Dissent will be policed at gunpoint. Law and constitutional precedent: A republic rewritten This moment marks a historic constitutional rupture. Trump's move to federalize the California National Guard without the governor's consent defies established precedent and strikes at the core of American federalism. Governor Gavin Newsom's lawsuit, Newsom v. Trump, invokes the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the military from enforcing civilian law. And yet, federal troops roam Los Angeles with semi-automatic precision. What was once unimaginable—federal armed forces embedded in US cities amid peaceful protests—is now fait accompli. Legal experts warn this deployment could set a precedent as dangerous as it is durable, allowing future presidents to invoke vague notions of 'sovereignty' to sidestep governors, mayors, courts—even Congress. This is not law enforcement. It is executive imperialism. Political theatre masquerading as public safety President Trump's apocalyptic tone—accusing protesters of waving 'foreign flags' and bringing 'third-world lawlessness'—is less a diagnosis than a dramaturgical strategy. In invoking militarism while invoking patriotism, Trump is staging a pantomime of leadership for his base, wielding the US military not as a shield of the republic, but as a prop of the presidency. Let's be clear: the majority of protests were peaceful. Community leaders, clergy, and concerned citizens chanted 'peaceful protest' with their hands raised. But Trump did not seek de-escalation. He sought a show. Marines in flak jackets, helicopters buzzing overhead, police with rubber bullets—it is not governance. It is political theatre, laced with menace and intent. This is not about public order. It is about performance authoritarianism. Military strain: Morale collapses under orders Behind the stoic faces of America's uniformed services lies a brewing crisis. Soldiers have privately expressed alarm at their use against civilians. Reports from Seal Beach and downtown staging areas describe low morale, chaotic logistics, and profound unease about what they are being asked to do. The mission, ambiguously defined, leaves many service members caught in a legal and ethical limbo. Are they defenders of the nation, or enforcers of a presidency? Are they protecting property, or intimidating political opposition? We must ask: How long can the military endure being cast in this role before the institution itself begins to fray? Democratic erosion: The No Kings moment In a fiery, televised address, governor Newsom declared, 'Democracy is under assault.' It was not rhetoric—it was a tocsin. Across the nation, protests have erupted under the banner 'No Kings Day,' symbolically timed with Trump's birthday and echoing the Founding Fathers' rejection of monarchy. What we are witnessing is not a partisan rift. It is a populist, cross-ideological resistance to the corrosion of democratic norms. When the military is used to quell dissent, when judges are ignored, when governors are threatened with arrest, when immigrants are hunted and their allies imprisoned—what remains of the democratic edifice? A republic does not fall in a single day. It erodes—curfew by curfew, raid by raid, arrest by arrest. A global reckoning The United States has long cast itself as a global beacon of democratic liberty. But today, images of troops confronting children of immigrants, of curfews enforced by men in camouflage, of governors suing their president to defend basic rights—these are not the hallmarks of democracy. They are the symptoms of a failing one. From Paris to Pretoria, New Delhi to New York, global observers must now confront an unthinkable reality: the world's oldest constitutional democracy is no longer immune to authoritarian drift. The contagion of militarized populism has reached home. The final question This moment will enter history books—but how it is remembered will depend on what comes next. Will the courts restore balance? Will the military resist politicization? Will the people demand their republic back? The world must not look away. Because if America forgets itself—if it allows tanks in the streets to become the new normal—then the idea of democracy itself is at stake. This is not Los Angeles's crisis alone. This is everyone's fight. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's case for sending troops to help ICE involves precedent from Fugitive Slave Act
Despite a stinging rebuke from a federal judge Thursday, military forces deployed in Los Angeles will remain under presidential control through the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns. On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit. "A lot rides on what happens this weekend," said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday. Read more: Los Angeles braces for weekend of 'No Kings' protests The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to "rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California's troops and deployed them against protesters. "His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," Breyer wrote. While ICE "was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have," it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military's help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added. "The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," the judge wrote. The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer's ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A. The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction. The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states' rights. The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace. Read more: Fears of ICE raids upend life in L.A. County, from schools to Home Depot parking lots But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson's move than it does with President Millard Fillmore's actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north. Trump's arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the "take care" clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military's repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War. "Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act," the professor said. Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called "unitary executive theory," a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch. "It's not a coincidence that we're seeing immigration be the flash point," said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. "Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority." Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it's clear Trump and his advisers have a "vision of how ICE can be emboldened." "He's putting that on steroids," Chen said. "He's folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing." Some experts point out that Judge Breyer's order is limited only to California, which means that until it's fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere. "The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "President Trump's memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it's appropriate … wherever protests are occurring," Goitein said. "He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force." Experts said Breyer's ruling set a high bar for what may be considered "rebellion" under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A. "It's hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government," Goitein said. The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn't budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work. Read more: L.A. law enforcement leaders walk tightrope amid immigration crackdown "The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens," the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. "Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect." Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system. "It's a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn't matter," Chen said. "I don't know that [Trump] particularly cares that he's doing something illegal." Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
