Trump's Move to Deploy National Guard in LA Slapped Down: District Court Declares It Unlawful
Los Angeles' National Guard deployment ruled unlawful by the court.
Get the inside scoop on why Judge Charles Breyer of the district court in San Francisco, facing an emergency application from the Golden State, ruled President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California to be an unlawful power grab.
In a major blow to Trump's authority, the court ordered the federal government to relinquish control over the National Guard back to California, undermining the president's attempts to quell the unrest on Los Angeles' streets. The judgment is set to take effect this Friday afternoon, and the administration has vowed to challenge the ruling.
Underlying tension boiled over when California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke out against the deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers and the potential involvement of Marine infantry, all ordered by Trump in response to the outrage against the administration's migration policies. Newsom took to Twitter denouncing the military's presence on city streets: "The court has just validated what we all knew: the military doesn't belong in our city streets." He called for an immediate halt to the "unnecessary militarization" of Los Angeles.
In regular times, each US state controls its own National Guard. However, during times of war or national emergencies, the President can assume control. The National Guard serves as a military reserve and is part of the US military. It can be activated in the event of natural disasters, riots, or internal calamities.
Judge Breyer, in his emotional address, justified the deployment as an unprecedented misuse of federal power. Since 1965, no US president has taken over the National Guard of a state against its expressed wishes. Breyer emphasized that the demonstrations in Los Angeles were not tantamount to rebellion.
Los Angeles has already seen protests against Trump's restrictive immigration policies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The government mobilized 4,000 troops from the National Guard and 700 infantry from the Marines to patrol Los Angeles. The troops began to arrive gradually, with plans to remain in the city until the threat had subsided. As of now, a deployment of up to 60 days has been sanctioned.
Sources: ntv.de, ino/dpa, Cornell Law School, ACLU
- California
- Justice
- USA
- Donald Trump
Enrichment Data:
- The court's decision to overturn Trump's National Guard deployment was based on several key constitutional and legal points:
- The deployment was initiated without the consent of the California governor, as required by Title 10 of the federal code and the US Constitution.
- The court found that the civil unrest in Los Angeles did not meet the legal definition of a "rebellion," necessary for the President to invoke federal authority to deploy troops under certain statutes.
- The deployment infringed upon California's sovereign right to control its National Guard and could set a dangerous precedent for the President unilaterally assuming control of state militias.
- The deployment raised concerns about violating the rights of American citizens, particularly in the context of the National Guard's role in aiding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in civilian law enforcement activities, which could lead to potential abuse of power and rights violations.
The Commission has also been consulted on the draft directive regarding the recent court ruling, as it involves the politics and general-news surrounding President Donald Trump's move to deploy the National Guard in California. The deployment was considered an unlawful power grab, with the court ordering the federal government to relinquish control over the National Guard back to California.
