Controversy over Trump's usage of National Guard in L.A. deliberated in federal court
In a contentious legal battle, the deployment of the National Guard for immigration enforcement in Los Angeles has sparked debate over the applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment.
The Posse Comitatus Act, a law that generally bars active-duty military from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities, is at the heart of the controversy. The Act's applicability to National Guard troops under federal orders is a matter of ongoing debate. The Trump administration maintains that the Guard's deployment does not violate the Act, as they are providing protection, not enforcing law.
Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment, which supports the principle that states control their National Guard unless they are federalized, has also come into play. Governor Gavin Newsom argues that deploying the Guard without his consent infringes on this amendment.
The legal wrangling has led to a temporary halt in a ruling by Judge Charles Breyer, allowing control of the California National Guard to remain with President Trump. California, however, is seeking the court's order to return control of the remaining troops to Governor Newsom and to stop using the military to execute federal law.
The case, currently under judicial review, raises questions about unprecedented federal use of the military domestically and whether the state's lawsuit can succeed given the claimed lack of direct harm and legal precedent.
During an immigration enforcement action in Mecca, a desert community east of Los Angeles, approximately 300 National Guard soldiers were present, compared to 200 federal law enforcement agents. This larger presence has been justified by federal officials as necessary due to the slow response of local law enforcement when crowds gathered to protest immigration arrests.
The trial, which resumes Tuesday morning, centers around the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, and the balance of power between states and the federal government under the 10th Amendment. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future deployments of the National Guard for immigration enforcement.
As the trial progresses, it remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the Posse Comitatus Act’s scope and the state-federal power balance under the 10th Amendment.
References: 1. NPR 2. The Hill 3. The Washington Post
- In the ongoing trial, the interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act, a policy restricting military involvement in domestic law enforcement, is crucial, particularly in relation to the National Guard's role in war-and-conflicts and politics.
- As the court considers California's lawsuit against the federal government, policy-and-legislation surrounding the roles and responsibilities of the National Guard in domestic law enforcement, as defined by the Posse Comitatus Act and the 10th Amendment, are under intense scrutiny, impacting general news coverage of the case.
