The ongoing legal battle over National Guard troops in Los Angeles reflects deepening tensions between the Trump administration and California officials regarding immigration policies and state authority.
Appeals Court Halts Trump’s Order to Withdraw National Guard from LA
Appeals Court Halts Trump’s Order to Withdraw National Guard from LA
Temporary Stay on Federal Judge’s Ruling Amid Controversy over Troop Deployments
An appeals court has intervened, issuing a temporary stay on a federal judge's order that mandated the Trump administration to relinquish control of California's National Guard troops. This ruling followed a prior verdict by federal Judge Charles Breyer, who deemed Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles—in an effort to curb immigration raids—illegal. The president justified his actions by claiming the troops were necessary to prevent the city from descending into chaos amid protests against his stringent immigration policies.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials quickly condemned Trump's actions, characterizing them as unnecessary provocations. Shortly after news of the appeals court's decision broke, Newsom took to social media to assert that "the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets."
In a packed courtroom, Judge Breyer highlighted the legal implications of the situation, stating that Trump's use of the National Guard was not in line with congressional mandates. He emphasized, “His actions were illegal,” and instructed that control be returned to the Governor of California promptly, although the judge allowed a temporary stay until the Trump administration could pursue an appeal.
After the ruling, the Trump administration argued the deployment was crucial for maintaining order and supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations targeting individuals in Los Angeles suspected of being undocumented. Despite pushback from Newsom, Trump mobilized 4,000 National Guard personnel along with 700 Marines to help manage the unrest, giving some troops the authority to detain individuals.
Historically, a president has not utilized National Guard troops without the consent of the state governor for over half a century. Judge Breyer stressed that while the president holds significant powers, those powers must be constitutionally grounded. He also countered claims from Justice Department attorneys that Governor Newsom was aware and had accepted the deployment order, asserting that the National Guard is ultimately under the governor’s command in domestic matters.
The implications of the court's rulings remain significant in shaping the relationship between state and federal government concerning military forces. As the appeals court prepares for further hearings, the dynamics of the legal battles underscore the ongoing challenges associated with Trump's immigration policies and their impact on the political landscape in California.
As troop presence continues in Los Angeles, the situation will be closely monitored, and discussions around the lawful authority for military intervention in civil matters are likely to persist. The ongoing protests—marked by over 300 arrests and major disruptions—have raised questions about the legitimacy of the government’s characterization of civil unrest as a "rebellion."
Additional reporting contributed by Ana Faguy in Washington, DC. Readers can follow developments via the US Politics Unspun newsletter.
California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials quickly condemned Trump's actions, characterizing them as unnecessary provocations. Shortly after news of the appeals court's decision broke, Newsom took to social media to assert that "the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets."
In a packed courtroom, Judge Breyer highlighted the legal implications of the situation, stating that Trump's use of the National Guard was not in line with congressional mandates. He emphasized, “His actions were illegal,” and instructed that control be returned to the Governor of California promptly, although the judge allowed a temporary stay until the Trump administration could pursue an appeal.
After the ruling, the Trump administration argued the deployment was crucial for maintaining order and supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations targeting individuals in Los Angeles suspected of being undocumented. Despite pushback from Newsom, Trump mobilized 4,000 National Guard personnel along with 700 Marines to help manage the unrest, giving some troops the authority to detain individuals.
Historically, a president has not utilized National Guard troops without the consent of the state governor for over half a century. Judge Breyer stressed that while the president holds significant powers, those powers must be constitutionally grounded. He also countered claims from Justice Department attorneys that Governor Newsom was aware and had accepted the deployment order, asserting that the National Guard is ultimately under the governor’s command in domestic matters.
The implications of the court's rulings remain significant in shaping the relationship between state and federal government concerning military forces. As the appeals court prepares for further hearings, the dynamics of the legal battles underscore the ongoing challenges associated with Trump's immigration policies and their impact on the political landscape in California.
As troop presence continues in Los Angeles, the situation will be closely monitored, and discussions around the lawful authority for military intervention in civil matters are likely to persist. The ongoing protests—marked by over 300 arrests and major disruptions—have raised questions about the legitimacy of the government’s characterization of civil unrest as a "rebellion."
Additional reporting contributed by Ana Faguy in Washington, DC. Readers can follow developments via the US Politics Unspun newsletter.
