Federal Appeals Court Grants Trump Administration's Position in Conflict with California Over National Guard Deployment
The Judicial Battle over Trump's National Guard Deployment
The ruling day for U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer's heated critique of the Trump administration's handling of immigration-related protests has come to a close, with an appeals court stepping in to mediate the dispute.
In a surprising move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has blocked a federal judge's order instructing President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the California National Guard and restore it to state Governor Gavin Newsom. The appeals court's decision comes after Judge Breyer strongly condemned the administration's actions.
"It isn't that a leader can merely state something, and it becomes so," Breyer wrote in his ruling. "It's a matter of whether a leader, be it a president or governor, follows the law as defined in the Constitution and statutes. That's what a leader must adhere to—otherwise, they become something other than a constitutional officer."
Breyer's decision highlights the illegality of deploying the National Guard in Los Angeles, as it potentially contravenes the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves specific powers to individual states when not already codified in federal law.
California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has consistently spoken against the Trump administration's intervention, pushing the courts to issue an emergency injunction prohibiting further utilization of National Guard troops.
"Today was a test of democracy, and we've passed it," Newsom declared moments before the appeals court's decision.
Trump promptly took to social media to express gratitude towards the appeals court, claiming a rare triumph. "If I hadn't sent the military to Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now," he wrote on Truth Social.
Previously, the White House considered Judge Breyer's order "unprecedented," fearing it could place "brave federal officials" in danger. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly proclaimed, "The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief."
Entitled to summon state reserves when unable to deploy "regular forces to execute the laws of the United States," Trump defended his decision using Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Title 10 may also be activated if the U.S. faces an imminent rebellion, insurrection, or invasion by a foreign power.
In his ruling, Breyer reproached the Trump administration for labeling immigration-related protests and riots as "rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles are in no way akin to 'rebellion,'" Breyer asserted. "Citizens' right to protest the government is one of the basic rights safeguarded by the First Amendment. Even when some people exceed the bounds, this right is not eliminated for everyone."
As the legal saga unfolds, the administration's lawyers argue for the president's decisions to be "unreviewable" by the courts, drawing on long-standing executive authority to quell civil unrest. Governor Newsom's legal team, on the other hand, insists the president has overstepped his constitutional and statutory authority.
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit panel is set to announce a decision imminently, with speculations of the case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court if California's appeal fails.
The ongoing legal dispute over the Trump administration's deployment of the National Guard in California highlights the complexity of policy-and-legislation in war-and-conflicts, as both sides argue about the President's constitutional and statutory authority. The politics surrounding this issue are evident in the heated exchanges between Judge Charles Breyer and the White House, with each side presenting varying perspectives on general-news topics such as civil rights, protests, and the role of the government in maintaining order.
