Trump's Attempt to Deploy National Guard in Los Angeles Halted: An Unprecedented Court Decision
Court halts execution of judgment regarding unlawful National Guard deployment
In a surprising move, a federal appeals court has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's order to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles. This decision came after a district court in San Francisco found the deployment to be illegal and unconstitutional, as per a report by "Politico". A hearing on the case is scheduled for next Tuesday at the appeals court.
Initially, Judge Charles Breyer of the district court in San Francisco ruled that the Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard in California was unlawful. He granted an emergency application by the US West Coast state, criticizing Trump for exceeding his authority and demanding that he relinquish control of the National Guard to the California government.
Governor Gavin Newsom had strongly opposed the deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers and the planned use of Marine infantry in Los Angeles. In a post on X, Newsom accused Trump of unnecessarily militarizing Los Angeles and urged him to cease the operation.
In the United States, National Guard control often lies with the states, but in times of war or national emergencies, the US President can seize control. The National Guard represents a military reserve unit, forming part of the US Armed Forces. They are typically deployed for natural disasters, riots, or other domestic emergencies.
This case represents an unprecedented display of government power since 1965, as no US President has taken control of a state's National Guard against its declared will in this manner. The protests in Los Angeles against Trump's hardline immigration stance and ICE immigration raids prompted the US government to mobilize 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 regular military personnel for deployment in Los Angeles. The soldiers have arrived in stages and are expected to remain until the threat subsides.
To clarify, the U.S. President does hold certain legal authorities to deploy the National Guard within a state despite state-level objections. While National Guard units are usually under state governors' control, specific federal statutes—for example, 10 U.S.C. § 12406—grant the President the ability to federalize and deploy the National Guard when there is a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States" or when regular forces are deemed insufficient to enforce federal law[2][1][3].
However, it is crucial to note that this power, while infrequently exercised, is typically reserved for extraordinary circumstances involving threats to federal authority or law enforcement[1][3]. In the given context, legal experts argue that Trump may have overstepped his bounds, given the longstanding principle of limiting federal military involvement in civilian matters[1][3].
The Commission has also been asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation, particularly in the context of the ongoing political tensions and policy-and-legislation debates sparked by war-and-conflicts. This effort is aimed at establishing clear policy guidelines to safeguard workers in various industries, including general-news reporting outlets, during potentially hazardous situations.
