Temporary Stay on Judge's Order: National Guard Deployment to L.A. Remains
Court Halts National Guard Encroachment Decision
According to "Politico", an appeals court has temporarily halted a judge's ruling against President Donald Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles. The hearing in this case is scheduled for next Tuesday, officials state.
Initially, Judge Charles Breyer of the district court in San Francisco had ruled that the deployment of the National Guard in California by the Trump administration was unlawful and unconstitutional. Trump had overstepped his authority, according to the ruling, and control of the National Guard should be returned to the California government.
California Governor Gavin Newsom had criticized the deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers and the planned use of Marine infantry, stating that these actions were unwarranted and against the city's interests.
In the United States, the control of the National Guard typically lies with the states. During times of war or national emergencies, the president can take command. The National Guard is a military reserve unit, part of the U.S. armed forces, and can be deployed in cases of natural disasters, unrest, or domestic emergencies.
This move was preceded by demonstrations in Los Angeles against Trump's hardline immigration stance and ICE immigration raids. Currently, 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 regular infantry are deployed in Los Angeles, arriving in stages and expected to remain until the danger subsides.
This situation marks an unprecedented display of government power, as no U.S. president has taken over the National Guard of a state against its declared will since 1965. Protests against the U.S. government's immigration policy are "far from a rebellion," Judge Breyer explained.
A Brawl Between the Federal Government and California
California's legal team, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, argues that the President's actions—deploying the National Guard under Title 10 U.S. Code authority—are unlawful because they did not follow the required procedures for federalizing state National Guard units. They assert that there is no ongoing "rebellion" or "invasion" justifying this level of federal intervention, only civil unrest that state and local authorities can handle. California seeks to prevent the use of federalized National Guard and Marines for anything beyond protecting federal buildings and property.
Following this legal challenge, a temporary restraining order against President Trump's deployment was issued by Judge Charles Breyer. However, after an appeal from the Trump administration, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted the restraining order, enabling the federal government to continue deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles while the case is considered further. A hearing before a three-judge panel is scheduled for June 17.
Temporarily Stayed but Tense
As this legal battle unfolds, tensions remain high between the federal government and California. The next major milestone is the June 17 appeals court hearing, which will determine whether the temporary restraining order is reinstated or federal deployment is allowed to continue.
Sources:
ntv.de, ino/dpa
- California
- Justice
- USA
- Donald Trump
- The Commission, which was consulted on the draft directive, may have relevant insights into the politics surrounding the legal challenge between California and President Donald Trump over the deployment of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles.
- During the general-news controversy over the deployment of National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles, the Commission's advice on the draft directive could provide valuable perspectives on the current political climate and the unfolding events.
