Latest news with #protests
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
US court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
It said that while presidents do not 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. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalising control of the guard. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. An appeals court on Thursday allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. '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 federalising 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 was allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. US National Guard troops prepare for duties. Photo: Reuters '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 US 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 prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, 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 US 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 cannot 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. Advertisement
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Wife of Colorado terror suspect makes desperate plea from ICE detention
The wife of an Egyptian national accused of hurling makeshift flamethrowers at pro-Israel protesters has issued a desperate plea from an ICE facility where she and her five children are being held. Hayam El Gamal, 43, and her children were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on June 3 - just days after her husband, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, allegedly attacked a demonstration honoring the October 7 victims who are still being held hostage by Hamas militants in Gaza. A dozen people between the ages of 52 and 88 were injured in the attack, which federal prosecutors believe Soliman planned out over the course of a year - driven by his anger toward Israel and his animosity toward 'Zionists.' The terror suspect is now facing 118 state charges, including attempted murder, as well as a federal hate crime charge for the assault. In a statement on Wednesday, El Gamal insisted she and her children had no idea what her husband was reportedly planning as she begged Americans to push for her and her family's release. 'My children and I are in total shock over what they say my husband did in Boulder, Colorado earlier this month,' she said in the statement released by her Michigan-based immigration attorney, Eric Lee. 'So many lives were ruined that day. There is never an excuse for hurting innocent people,' El Gamal said from the Dilley Family Detention Center in Texas. 'We have been cooperating with the authorities, who are trying their best to get to the bottom of this. We send our love to the many families who are suffering as a result of the attack.' She then went on to question why she and her children are being punished for the actions of her husband and their father. 'Why punish any of us, who did nothing wrong?' El Gamal said, noting that on the night of June 3 she and her five children were put on a flight and transferred to Colorado to the Texas-based facility. Her eldest daughter, Habiba Soliman, has since turned 18 at the ICE detention center, while her seven year old and 15 year old also have upcoming birthdays. At the detention center, El Gamal said the family is 'treated like animals by the officers who told us we are going to be punished for what my husband is accused of doing,' and claimed that her youngest children were 'forced to watch officials rough up' another detainee. 'They cried and cried, thinking they would be roughed up, too.' She also claimed that the conditions at the Dilley Family Detention Center are inhumane, and detainees are always being watched and woken up in the middle of the night. Now, the mother-of-five says all her children want 'is to be home, to be in school, to have privacy, to sleep in their own beds, to have their mother make them a home cooked meal, to help them grieve and get through these terrible weeks.' 'But instead, we are here, in jail in Texas, where you can't be human,' El Gamal said. She also claimed she and her family have 'tried to do everything right' since they arrived in the United States on a visa in August 2022, noting that they learned English, found work and were good neighbors 'cooking food for those around us regardless of whether they are Muslim, Christian or Jewish. 'I do not judge anyone based on his religion. If your heart is good, that's enough,' El Gamal continued, arguing she just wants 'to give my children good lives. 'It has been two weeks in jail, how much longer will we be here for something we didn't do? How much longer until the damage to my children is irreversible?' she said. 'It has been so hard for me to stay strong for my kids. I'm so tired. 'I ask the American people, with all my heart, to please listen to our story and help us,' she pleaded. Meanwhile, her attorney is fighting to get the family to remain in the United States - arguing that it is unclear why they are being detained. In court documents filed last week, federal prosecutors note that the family entered the United States with B1 visitor visas in 2022, which are meant to be used for business purposes, such as conferences, according to KDVR. Soliman then filed for asylum on September 29, 2022, listing his wife and five children as dependents - and he was granted a work authorization in March 2023. That asylum claim is still pending, according to a petition provided to a federal judge last week, which also noted that El Gamal is a network engineer with a pending EB2 visa - which is given to professionals with advanced degrees. But Lee argued to CNN, 'The issue here is whether they can be detained when the government has explicitly stated that its reason for detaining them is not because of their visa stays, but is because of their relationship to their husband/father.' In fact, the family had been set for expedited removal following Soliman's attack, which would allow immigration officials to remove them without a hearing before an immigration judge. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem noted at the time that her agency was 'investigating to what extent [Soliman's] family knew about this heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it.' However, El Gamal has not been charged with any wrongdoing, Lee notes. 'The government can't detain individuals for unlawful purposes,' he said, as a federal judge approved his request to extend a temporary restraining order issued by a different judge on June 4. Biden-appointed US District Court Judge Gordon Gallagher ruled at the time that deporting them without adequate process could cause 'irreparable harm.' The order has now been extended for another 14 days, during which the family is expected to have an immigration hearing. has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment. My name is Hayam El Gamal. My five children and I are in total shock over what they say my husband did in Boulder, Colorado earlier this month. So many lives were ruined on that day. There is never an excuse for hurting innocent people. We have been cooperating with the authorities, who are trying their best to get to the bottom of this. We send our love to the many families who are suffering as a result of the attack. My kids and I were arrested by ICE on June 3, put on a flight to Texas in the middle of the night and have now been in an immigration jail in Texas for two weeks. This includes my two four-year-old children, my seven-year-old, my fifteen-year-old, and my oldest daughter, who just turned eighteen in jail. We are grieving, and we are suffering. We are treated like animals by the officers, who told us we are being punished for what my husband is accused of doing. But why punish me? Why punish my four-year-old children? Why punish any of us, who did nothing wrong? Since coming to America three years ago, we have tried to do everything right. We got work permits. We learned English. My daughter and I volunteered teaching English to other immigrants, to help them become more comfortable in America. We have always tried to be good neighbors, cooking food for those around us regardless of whether they are Muslim, Christian or Jewish. I do not judge anyone based on his religion. If your heart is good, that's enough. All I want is to give my children good lives. My oldest daughter volunteered at a hospital; she has a 4.5 GPA and wants to become a doctor, to help people in this country. My kids want to go to school, they want to see their friends and deal with their grief from recent weeks. But here they can't sleep. They cry throughout the day, asking me, 'When will we get to go home?' When we were first detained, my children were forced to watch officials rough-up another detainee, and they cried and cried, thinking they would be roughed-up, too. Now my seven-year-old is about to have her birthday in jail, and my fifteen-year-old, too. All they want is to be home, to be in school, to have privacy, to sleep in their own beds, to have their mother make them a home-cooked meal, to help them grieve and get through these terrible weeks. But instead, we are here, in jail in Texas, where you can't be human. Where you are always being watched. Where you are woken up in the middle of the night by guards and given food fit for animals. Only mothers can truly understand what we are going through. I did everything for my kids. It has been two weeks in jail, how much longer will we be here for something we didn't do? How much longer until the damage to my children is irreversible? It has been so hard for me to stay strong for my kids. I'm so tired. I ask the American people, with all my heart, to please listen to our story and help us.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump can keep National Guard in Los Angeles, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court in San Francisco said Thursday that President Donald Trump can keep the California National Guard in Los Angeles for now, delivering a win for the president as he aims to use the military to police protests against his deportation efforts. The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — two of whom were appointed by Trump in his first term and the third appointed by former President Joe Biden — said that Trump appears to have lawfully deployed the National Guard in the city, even though he did not consult California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Allowed to Keep Using National Guard in LA for Now
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump can continue to use National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles as a legal challenge over his use of the military proceeds, a federal appeals court ruled. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown In a win for the White House, a three-judge panel in San Francisco on Thursday said the Trump administration can keep using California National Guard troops to respond to the protests. In effect, it doesn't change the situation on the ground in Los Angeles, where the federal government has been deploying the military for more than a week. Thursday's decision isn't the final ruling on the matter and is likely to be immediately challenged. California could appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, or a bigger panel in the same appeals court. The lower court that had ordered the federal government to return control of the troops to the state will also hold a hearing on Friday. California and the Trump administration have been sparring over the federal government's response to the protests, including the deployment of thousands of the state's National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines. California and its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, have blasted Trump's deployment as a 'power grab' and an unnecessary intrusion on the work of local officials to police the protests. Lawyers for the state also have said it's 'terrifying' that Justice Department lawyers said the presidents actions can't be second-guessed by the courts, and argue that the deployment sets a dangerous precedent. 'While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government's appeal, this case is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.' The Trump administration has maintained that the president has the power to unilaterally federalize National Guard troops when he determines there is a 'rebellion' or 'invasion' that necessitates military intervention. And presidents are permitted to call up the state troops when 'regular forces' are unable to enforce federal law. Trump hailed the ruling as a 'BIG WIN,' saying in a Truth Social post that calling in the National Guard is a 'core power' of the presidency. Trump added in the post 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.' The appeals court judges said Trump likely acted lawfully when he federalized the National Guard, but they objected to arguments raised by Justice Department lawyers that his decision cannot be reviewed by the courts. 'We conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the appeals court said in a unanimous ruling late Thursday. The judges also stressed that the decision is limited to whether Trump was allowed to call for the deployment, but does not address 'the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.' '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 statement. '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 appeals court panel, which heard arguments Tuesday by lawyers from both the Justice Department and California, is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump and one by former President Joe Biden. The court stepped in last week at the administration's request to pauses US District Judge Charles Breyer's order declaring that Trump's deployment without California's consent was 'illegal.' Trump issued a proclamation authorizing their deployment on June 7 and said protests in the city against his deportation initiative represent a form of 'rebellion' against the authority of the federal government. In court filings, lawyers for the administration cited reports of violence and threats against federal property and officers conducting immigration enforcement. Breyer said in his June 12 ruling he was troubled by the idea that a protest against the federal government on its own could 'justify a finding of rebellion.' The case is Newsom v. Trump, 25-3727, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco). --With assistance from Derek Wallbank, Chelsea Mes and Janine Phakdeetham. (Updates with comments from Bonta, Trump, Newsom, starting in sixth paragraph.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Allowed to Keep Using National Guard in LA for Now
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump can continue to use National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles as a legal challenge over his use of the military proceeds, a federal appeals court ruled. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown In a win for the White House, a three-judge panel in San Francisco on Thursday said the Trump administration can keep using California National Guard troops to respond to the protests. In effect, it doesn't change the situation on the ground in Los Angeles, where the federal government has been deploying the military for more than a week. Thursday's decision isn't the final ruling on the matter and is likely to be immediately challenged. California could appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, or a bigger panel in the same appeals court. The lower court that had ordered the federal government to return control of the troops to the state will also hold a hearing on Friday. California and the Trump administration have been sparring over the federal government's response to the protests, including the deployment of thousands of the state's National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines. California and its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, have blasted Trump's deployment as a 'power grab' and an unnecessary intrusion on the work of local officials to police the protests. Lawyers for the state also have said it's 'terrifying' that Justice Department lawyers said the presidents actions can't be second-guessed by the courts, and argue that the deployment sets a dangerous precedent. 'While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government's appeal, this case is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.' The Trump administration has maintained that the president has the power to unilaterally federalize National Guard troops when he determines there is a 'rebellion' or 'invasion' that necessitates military intervention. And presidents are permitted to call up the state troops when 'regular forces' are unable to enforce federal law. Trump hailed the ruling as a 'BIG WIN,' saying in a Truth Social post that calling in the National Guard is a 'core power' of the presidency. Trump added in the post 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.' The appeals court judges said Trump likely acted lawfully when he federalized the National Guard, but they objected to arguments raised by Justice Department lawyers that his decision cannot be reviewed by the courts. 'We conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the appeals court said in a unanimous ruling late Thursday. The judges also stressed that the decision is limited to whether Trump was allowed to call for the deployment, but does not address 'the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.' '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 statement. '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 appeals court panel, which heard arguments Tuesday by lawyers from both the Justice Department and California, is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump and one by former President Joe Biden. The court stepped in last week at the administration's request to pauses US District Judge Charles Breyer's order declaring that Trump's deployment without California's consent was 'illegal.' Trump issued a proclamation authorizing their deployment on June 7 and said protests in the city against his deportation initiative represent a form of 'rebellion' against the authority of the federal government. In court filings, lawyers for the administration cited reports of violence and threats against federal property and officers conducting immigration enforcement. Breyer said in his June 12 ruling he was troubled by the idea that a protest against the federal government on its own could 'justify a finding of rebellion.' The case is Newsom v. Trump, 25-3727, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco). --With assistance from Derek Wallbank, Chelsea Mes and Janine Phakdeetham. (Updates with comments from Bonta, Trump, Newsom, starting in sixth paragraph.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
