Enforcing Immigration Act Through Military Intervention: Trump Cites Historical Precedent from Fugitive Slave Law
Here's a new take on the article:
Title: Steely Showdown: Trump's Executive Power Tested in LA
Sonja Sharp Follow
In a tense standoff that's testing the limits of presidential authority and stirring up clashes between state and federal powers, military personnel in Los Angeles remain under the president's command - at least through the weekend.
Street protests will continue to face platoons of armed soldiers, as local and state officials square off with the White House. The administration is grappling with legal complexities, seeking ancient statutes to bolster its stance in the ongoing federal crackdown - even reaching back to constitutional schemes originally conceived to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Many constitutional scholars see this face-off as a pivotal trial run for powers the administration has long desired - powers beyond simply squashing protests or dominating blue state leaders, but stretching the presidential reach to the legal maximum.
"The weekend's events carry significant weight," remarked Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
By delaying a ruling that would've transferred command of most troops back to California officials past the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed control of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to the Trump administration ahead of the "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday.
Los Angeles Readies for 'No Kings' Protest
More than a dozen groups are gearing up for protest marches in the LA area on Saturday, following eight days of demonstrations against immigration enforcement.
The administration has claimed the authority to rush troops to LA due to protesters impeding ICE agents from apprehending undocumented immigrants and because demonstrations downtown constituted "rebellion against the authority of the United States Government."
However, US District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco held Thursday that the president overstepped his bounds when he took control of California's troops and ordered them against protesters. In his ruling, Breyer stated the president's actions were both outside the scope of his statutory authority and a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
"The president's actions were illegal," Breyer wrote.
Although ICE "was not able to detain as many individuals as the administration claims it could," it was still able to enforce US immigration law without help from the military, Breyer determined. A few troublemakers among the peaceful majority did not equate to an insurrection, he added.
"The idea that protests can quickly spin from protected activity to open rebellion is untenable and dangerous," the judge underscored.
The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer's ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have granted California leaders the ability to withdraw troops from LA streets. The pause will hold until at least Tuesday, when a panel of judges - made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden - will hear arguments over the troops' continued federal control.
Legal scholars have drawn on centuries-old case law, presenting vastly contrasting visions of federal authority and states' rights in this high-stakes dispute.
The last time the President federalized National Guard forces over a governor's objections was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March.
California: Caught in the Crossfire
Upheaval in LA County: ICE Raids Disrupt Daily Life From Schools to Retail Spaces
Continuing federal immigration enforcement actions have disrupted the flow of daily life across greater LA, reaching as far as a middle school graduation where attendees were left cowering in fear.
When troops were sent in to aid ICE, the move was less reminiscent of Johnson's decisive action than it was of President Millard Fillmore's measures a century prior, according to Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. In the 1850s, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking escaped slaves who had fled northward.
Trump's rationale for deploying National Guard and Marine forces to support federal immigration enforcement echoes the same principle, rooted in the "take care" clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola noted. He pointed out that the military's repeated clashes with civilians contributed to the escalation that led to the Civil War.
"Much of the population vehemently opposed the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act," the professor commented.
Some analysts believe Trump strategically selected immigration as the battleground to champion his interpretation of the so-called "unitary executive theory" - a legal doctrine asserting that the legislature has no power, and the judiciary has no right to interfere with the president's wielding of executive authority.
"It's not an accident that immigration has become the epicenter of the issue," said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. "Anyone striving to exert robust federal control over immigration would view LA as a symbolic stage to assert their dominance."
Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it's evident that Trump and his advisors have a vision for how ICE can be fortified.
"He's amping things up," Chen emphasized. "He's combining multiple types of executive overreach as though they were equivalent."
Some experts suggest Judge Breyer's order only applies to California, meaning that if it stands after appeals, the president may attempt similar actions elsewhere.
"The president could move to take a similar stance in another jurisdiction," observed Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice.
"President Trump's memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it abundantly clear that he believes it's appropriate... wherever protests are happening," Goitein said. "He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force."
Experts agreed that Breyer established a high bar for what may be deemed "rebellion" under the law, making it harder for the administration to credibly assert that a rebellion is brewing in LA, should the court's decision be upheld.
"It's hard to envision that anything we witness over the weekend will be organized, armed insurrection," Goitein concluded.
While the Trump administration refuses to back down from its claims that extreme action is required to restore order and protect federal agents, some legal scholars debate whether the law truly matters to the president.
"It's an unusual thing for me to say as a law professor, but I'm beginning to wonder if the law doesn't factor into [Trump's] decisions," Chen admitted.
Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.
Further Reading
Misinformation spinning the truth: distorted reality in LA amid unrest
National Guard troops to remain under Trump's control, for now, following 9th Circuit order
Protest is patriotic: 'No Kings' demonstrations across LA against ICE sweeps, Trump presidency
- The ongoing federal crackdown in California, particularly in Los Angeles, is a testing ground for presidential powers, challenging the limits of immigration law.
- The administration is seeking to justify its actions by referring to ancient statutes and constitutional schemes, including those originally intended for the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
- The standoff between state and federal powers over immigration enforcement has sparked controversy and debate in the realm of politics, general news, and crime-and-justice.
- The 'No Kings' protests planned for Saturday in LA are not only against immigration enforcement but also represent a challenge to the president's authority in the face of stated legal complexities.
- The government's use of military personnel in car-accidents-prone areas during immigration enforcement actions has disrupted daily life in LA, from schools to retail spaces, evoking comparisons to historical events such as the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.
- Legal scholars are drawing on centuries-old case law to present contrasting visions of federal authority and states' rights in this high-stakes dispute, which could have far-reaching implications for policy-and-legislation and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
- The strategy of using immigration as a battleground to assert a unitary executive theory could potentially lead to the president attempting similar actions elsewhere, should the courts' decisions be upheld, affecting the general-news landscape and the future of war-and-conflicts and politics.
