Deployment of National Guard in California Remains Temporarily Allowed by Federal Court
National Guard deployment sanctioned by the Federal Court, at least for now.
Get the latest updates on the unfolding situation, right here!
After President Donald Trump's appeal, a federal court temporarily upheld his capability to station the National Guard in Los Angeles. The judge's initial order, which declared the mobilization as unlawful and unconstitutional, has been temporarily put on hold, as per Politico. A hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday at the appeals court.
In earlier proceedings, Judge Charles Breyer of the San Francisco district court had sided with California state officials, declaring the deployment by the Trump administration as illegal. Trump had overstepped his bounds, the ruling stated, and must relinquish control of the National Guard back to the California government.
California Governor Gavin Newsom had been vocal in his criticism of the deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers and the planned use of Marine infantry at the President's orders in Los Angeles, due to public unrest triggered by the government's immigration policy. Newsom accused the President of escalating the situation, stating in a tweet, "The court just confirmed what we all know: The military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets."
In normal circumstances, state governments have control over the National Guard. However, in times of war or national emergencies, the President can seize command of the National Guard. The National Guard is a military reserve unit that is part of the U.S. armed forces, and it can be deployed in instances of natural disasters, riots, or internal emergencies.
This move was preceded by protests in Los Angeles against Trump's hardline immigration stance and immigration raids led by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). With about 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 regular infantry dispatched to Los Angeles, the escalating tension underscores the ongoing power struggle between federal power and state rights.
Source: ntv.de, ino/dpa
As the battle wages on, stay informed with our latest updates!
- Politics
- California
- USA
Enrichment Data:
The constitutional authority of President Trump regarding National Guard deployment in California differs from typical state control in several key ways:
Normal State Control of the National Guard
- State Sovereignty: Typically, the National Guard is under the control of state governors, who serve as the Commander-in-Chief of their respective state's National Guard units. This emphasizes state governors' ability to use the Guard for state-specific purposes such as disaster relief and maintaining public order.
- Federalization: The National Guard can be federalized by the President under specific circumstances, such as during war or when the President deems it necessary to enforce federal laws. However, the consent of the state governor is usually required, except in cases where the Insurrection Act is invoked[3].
Trump's Actions in California
- Presidential Override: President Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles without Governor Gavin Newsom's consent, citing a need to address civil unrest. This move was deemed an infringement upon the governor's authority and triggered legal challenges[1][3].
- Constitutional and Legal Challenges: A federal judge ruled that Trump's deployment was illegal and unconstitutional, asserting that it did not meet the threshold for rebellion required for such actions. The appeals court later allowed the deployment to continue, pending further legal review[1].
- Federal Statutes: Trump cited a federal statute allowing him to use the National Guard to suppress rebellion or execute federal laws when regular forces are insufficient. Critics claim that the situation in Los Angeles did not constitute a rebellion[1][2].
Significant Factors
- Invocation of Federal Authority: Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard without the state's consent highlights an assertion of federal authority over state sovereignty.
- Legal and Constitutional Debate: The deployment has sparked intense legal and constitutional discussions, showcasing tensions between federal power and state rights.
Overall, Trump's actions in California represent a deviation from typical state control over the National Guard, with significant legal and constitutional consequences.
- The Commission has also been consulted on the draft directive regarding the constitutional authority of President Trump regarding National Guard deployment in California, given the complexities of state sovereignty and federal authority involved.
- The ongoing dispute over the deployment of the National Guard in California, a matter of general-news and politics, serves as a powerful symbol of the ongoing tension between federal power and state rights in the United States.
