The dispute concerning Trump's deployment of the National Guard heads to a California court for hearing
The deployment of the National Guard by President Donald Trump in Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids has sparked a series of legal challenges, centering on potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, the Tenth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Posse Comitatus Act (PCA)
The Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law from 1878, generally prohibits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes without specific Congressional authorization. The deployment of National Guard troops and Marines alongside federal agents conducting immigration raids is under scrutiny for active participation in law enforcement activities such as setting perimeters, blockades, and detaining civilians. However, the Department of Justice argues that the troops were protecting federal property and law enforcement agents, a permissible use under PCA exceptions [1][2][3][5].
Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. California Governor Gavin Newsom’s opposition to the use of the state’s National Guard without his consent invokes the Tenth Amendment principle of state sovereignty over state militias. The Trump administration’s use of federalized California National Guard troops without the governor’s approval raises constitutional concerns about federal overreach into state-controlled military forces [1][3][5].
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Potential violations could also relate to the procedural legality of the federal government's actions in deploying military forces domestically without following required notice, consultation, or rule-making processes that may be mandated for such significant actions. However, the primary legal focus has been on the PCA and constitutional issues rather than APA claims, and no clear details have emerged about APA violations in this context [1][3].
In summary, the key legal controversy is whether the federal government unlawfully used the military for civilian law enforcement actions in violation of the PCA and infringed on California’s rights under the Tenth Amendment by deploying the state’s National Guard without governor approval. The DOJ defends the deployment as lawful under exceptions for protecting federal property and personnel, while California calls it an unprecedented and unlawful military intervention in civilian law enforcement [1][2][3][5].
Newsom's team is seeking symbolic relief, including a declaration that the memorandum used to federalize the National Guard and Hegseth's orders were unauthorized and illegal. They are also asking for injunctive relief prohibiting Hegseth and the Department of Defense from federalizing and deploying the California National Guard and military without meeting legal requirements, including the cooperation of the governor.
Trump's lawyers plan to call Maj. Gen. Scott M. Sherman, deputy commanding general of the National Guard, as a witness to discuss the National Guard's deployment to Los Angeles and their compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. Newsom's lawyers argue that the Administrative Procedure Act was violated by Trump and Hegseth's actions.
The legal implications of this case will shape how these principles apply to such domestic military deployments. The outcome of ongoing litigation will be crucial in defining the boundaries between federal and state powers and the role of the military in domestic law enforcement.
[1] NPR. (2020, June 14). California Sues Trump Over National Guard Deployment In Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2020/06/14/878512148/california-sues-trump-over-national-guard-deployment-in-los-angeles
[2] CNN. (2020, June 14). California sues Trump over National Guard deployment in Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/politics/california-sues-trump-national-guard-deployment-los-angeles/index.html
[3] The Hill. (2020, June 14). California sues Trump over National Guard deployment in Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/502306-california-sues-trump-over-national-guard-deployment-in-los-angeles
[4] US Code. (n.d.). Title 10, Subtitle B, Part I, Chapter 153 - Insurrection. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/333
[5] The Washington Post. (2020, June 15). California sues Trump over National Guard deployment in Los Angeles. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/15/california-sues-trump-over-national-guard-deployment-los-angeles/
- The ongoing legal battle over the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, led by California Governor Gavin Newsom, has expanded to include concerns about constitutional violations of the general principle of politics that emphasizes the separation of powers, as the federal government's actions seem to infringe on state rights.
- In the realm of crime and justice, Newsom's legal team has argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was violated by the deployment, pointing to potential procedural irregularities in the government's handling of the situation.
- The continued discourse surrounding the use of the National Guard, war-and-conflicts, policy-and-legislation, and politics, in the context of the protests over immigration raids, underscores the importance of general news media in facilitating public understanding and debate on critical issues.
