Latest news with #Title10
Japan Today
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Japan Today
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating Posse Comitatus Act
California National Guard stand guard along a street near protesters and Trump supporters in Santa Ana, Calif. on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (AP Photo Jae C. Hong) By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer also asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction returning control to Newsom of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans, had gathered at a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. '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. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. '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,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
NBC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
2,000 more National Guard troops on duty in L.A. as legal battle over deployment continues
The United States government will activate an extra 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles, the military confirmed in a statement Tuesday night, as a legal battle continues over the deployment. Protests against federal immigration policies that exploded in Los Angeles and across the country in recent weeks have since died down, and a nighttime curfew has been lifted as businesses return to normality. Nevertheless, the U.S. Northern Command said the reinforcements were needed to "support the protection of federal functions, personnel, and property in the greater Los Angeles area." The 2,000 troops are deployed at the direction of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, using Title 10, which allows the president to call in the National Guard when the country is at risk of invasion or rebellion. That means at least 4,100 National Guard troops and 700 Marines have been deployed to the streets of L.A. after 2,100 were sent there on June 9. Tuesday's statement confirms a statement from last Monday on the troop increase. The soldiers cannot participate in civilian policing, leading city leaders to attack the deployments as political theater. "The soldiers are completing training on de-escalation, crowd control, and use of the standing rules for the use of force in advance of joining the federal protection mission," the military statement said. Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the move and said the troops would be "twiddling their thumbs." "This isn't a new deployment — it's the same group of soldiers who have been diverted from critical wildfire work and work at the border, now twiddling their thumbs for Donald Trump's political theater," Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson from Newsom's office, said. Newsom said last week that the deployment of an extra 2,000 personnel would be "reckless, pointless and disrespectful to our troops." L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has called the deployment a "chaotic escalation." The confirmation of the extra personnel came hours after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on whether the federal government can deploy troops to American cities, or should turn over their command to Californian officials. The court heard an appeal and ruled last week that President Donald Trump can retain command of the troops, pausing a ruling from District Court Judge Charles Breyer that said the deployment was unlawful. Tuesday's hearing considered whether the most recent order can stand as the case proceeds through the courts. The three-judge panel seemed unlikely to be interested in lifting the pause that was imposed by the Appeals Court. That court is expected to make a decision in the coming days, ahead of a Friday hearing before Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco federal court. The Appeals Court's decision — and any potential Supreme Court involvement — could have huge ramifications for the political executive's powers and activities in Washington and whether troops can be sent to other cities.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. appeals court weighs Trump's deployment of National Guard in L.A.
Washington — A federal appeals court in San Francisco weighed Tuesday whether President Trump can continue with his deployment of California's National Guard in Los Angeles to protect federal immigration authorities during enforcement operations and appeared skeptical of the state's arguments against the president's mobilization of more than 4,000 troops. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard arguments on a Justice Department request for it to halt a district judge's order that required Mr. Trump to return control of the National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom while the court fight moves forward. Newsom, a Democrat, objects to the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general with the Justice Department, said Mr. Trump's decision to call National Guard troops into federal service under a law known as Title 10 is unreviewable by courts, regardless of the facts of the case. If the panel were to side with California, he warned, "it puts Article III judges on a collision course with the commander-in-chief." Shumate said that California's interpretation of the law is "dangerous" and would allow Newsom to issue a "pocket veto" of any future orders from Mr. Trump. He said it's "essential" that the district court's injunction be lifted and said leaving it intact would put "lives and property at risk." Shumate said that if the 9th Circuit declines to halt the district judge's order, it should allow the Justice Department time to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. But Sam Harbourt, a deputy solicitor general for California, said Mr. Trump's order calling the National Guard into federal service sweeps too broadly. He told the court that the president failed to consider any "modest measures" to quell protests in Los Angeles before taking the "grave and extraordinary step" of calling forth the National Guard. Harbourt told the judges that Mr. Trump circumvented Newsom when he unilaterally decided to deploy the California National Guard to Los Angeles and warned that the continued presence of troops in city streets would escalate tensions and the risk of violence. The three judges considering the Trump administration's request for a stay during the appeal are Judges Mark Bennett, Eric Miller and Jennifer Sung. Mr. Trump appointed Bennett and Miller during his first term, and former President Joe Biden tapped Sung for the 9th Circuit. Early on, Bennett appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's position that courts cannot review the president's decision to federalize the National Guard and should not second-guess his military judgments. But as the arguments continued, all three judges pressed Harbourt on his position. Bennett asked where in the law there is a requirement for the president to have considered alternative measures before exercising control of the National Guard. He also probed Harbourt on his claim that Title 10 required Mr. Trump to consult with Newsom before calling the California troops into federal service. Miller cited a state law that he said effectively makes the adjutant general of the California National Guard a "substitute" for the governor. Mr. Trump had directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to effectuate the federalization of Guard troops, and he then issued memoranda to the adjutant general to transfer authority over the Guard from the state to the federal government. The case landed before the 9th Circuit after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled last week that Mr. Trump's actions in deploying the National Guard to respond to protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles were illegal and blocked the administration from deploying the troops in the city. The Trump administration swiftly appealed that decision, and the 9th Circuit panel issued a temporary administrative stay while it took more time to consider the issue. The legal battle involves whether the president exceeded his authority when he invoked Title 10 to call forth the California National Guard in response to protests in California's largest city. Demonstrations broke out earlier this month after immigration agents conducted raids across Los Angeles as part of the administration's efforts to crack down on immigration and execute mass deportations. Title 10 lays out three circumstances under which the National Guard can be called into federal service: when the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; when there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the U.S.; or when the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws. It then says that orders "shall be issued through" the governor. Mr. Trump said in his June 7 memorandum ordering the deployment of 2,000 National Guard members that the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion," which allowed him to federalize the National Guard and bypass Newsom. An additional 2,000 troops were brought under federal command. Roughly 700 active-duty U.S. Marines have also been mobilized to the area to protect federal property and immigration agents during arrests. In his decision, Breyer rejected the president's claim that the demonstrations are a "rebellion," writing that he is "troubled by the implication inherent in defendants' argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion." The protests, the judge said, "fall far short" of rebellion, and the administration failed to identify a "violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole." The judge's order did not address the president's mobilization of the Marines to Los Angeles. In filings with the 9th Circuit, the Trump administration argued that courts do not have a role in reviewing the president's decision to deploy the troops. Even if courts could review his decision to call the National Guard into federal service, the Justice Department said the president had ample reason to determine that the protests in Los Angeles rose to the level of a "danger" of rebellion, one of the conditions laid out in Title 10. "The district court's order improperly impinges on the commander in chief's supervision of military operations, countermands a military directive to officers in the Held, and puts federal officers (and others) in harm's way," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Newsom and California officials told the 9th Circuit in filings that Breyer's order should be left undisturbed, as it restored the status quo in place before Mr. Trump's June 7 memorandum. "Considered individually, defendants' legal arguments are meritless. Considered in the aggregate, they are terrifying," California lawyers wrote. They said that the administration's interpretation of Title 10 "would empower the president to commandeer a state's National Guard based merely on evidence that some civilians opposed his authority, disobeyed his commands, or presented operational difficulties for civil law enforcement officials — and without any input from (or even notice to) the governor. " They said that "unchecked power" could be used in any context, "not just where civilians are protesting immigration enforcement, but also where they are protesting other policies of a federal administration, or protesting in advance of a hotly contested federal election." "Collectively, defendants' arguments would sideline the judiciary, ignore Congress's limitations, and trample over the states' sovereign interest in their own militias," California's attorneys argued. Among the issues before the 9th Circuit panel is whether the Trump administration properly notified Newsom of its order calling the National Guard into federal service. The Justice Department argued in lower court proceedings that it did because two memos calling up the National Guard went through California's adjutant general, who runs the California National Guard, and not Newsom's office, as California has argued is necessary. That argument, Breyer wrote, "strains credibility" because Congress mandates that the National Guard requires the notice to be "issued through the governors." Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder 10 years after shooting at Mother Emanuel AME Church, victims speak of forgiveness Migrant farm workers express fears of ICE raids
Straits Times
3 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.
Hamilton Spectator
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court hears arguments in National Guard deployment in Los Angeles
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco heard arguments Tuesday afternoon on whether the Trump administration should return control of National Guard troops to California after they were deployed following protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids. The hearing comes after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request by the administration last week to temporarily pause a lower court order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of the soldiers to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who filed a lawsuit over the deployment. Judge Mark Bennett, who was appointed by Trump, started the hearing held via video by asking the federal government's attorney, Brett Shumate, whether the Department of Justice's position is that the courts have no role in reviewing the president's decision to call the National Guard. 'No, there's no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision,' Shumate answered. 'The statute says the president may call on federal service members and units of the Guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary,' Shumate said, adding that 'couldn't be any more clear.' Shumate pointed out the ongoing protests in Los Angeles and said the Guard is necessary to protect federal officers and buildings. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco ruled last week that the Guard deployment was illegal and exceeded Trump's authority. He granted Newsom a temporary restraining order to take control of the Guard while his lawsuit proceeds. It applied only to the National Guard troops and not the Marines, who were also deployed to LA but had not been sent to the streets at the time of the ruling. The Trump administration argued the deployment was necessary to restore order and protect federal buildings and officers. In his lawsuit, Newsom accused the president of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources. The governor calls the federal government's decision to take command of the state's National Guard 'illegal and immoral.' Newsom filed the suit following days of unrest as demonstrators protested against federal immigration raids across the city. Newsom said ahead of the hearing that he was confident in the rule of law and encouraged by a federal judge's order last week that Trump return control of the National Guard to California, before that ruling was halted. 'I'm confident that common sense will prevail here: The U.S. military belongs on the battlefield, not on American streets,' Newsom said in a statement. Breyer ruled the Trump violated the use of Title 10, which allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, said in his ruling that what has been happening in Los Angeles does not meet the definition of a rebellion. '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.' The National Guard hasn't been activated without a governor's permission since 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. ___ This story has been updated to correct the spelling of the judge's last name to Bennett, not Benett. ___ Associated Press writer Sophie Austin contributed from Sacramento, California. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
