The Unlawful Deployment: Trump's National Guard Order Overturned in California
The judicial body rules that the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is unlawful.
Let's cut to the chase - Judge Charles Breyer of the San Francisco district court deemed President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard in California as unlawful. The judgement is set to take effect by Friday afternoon (local time), but the US government has vowed to file an appeal.
California Governor Gavin Newsom had blasted the deployment of thousands of National Guard soldiers and the planned use of Marine infantry in Los Angeles at Trump's orders due to opposition against the administration's immigration policy. In the States, control over the National Guard typically belongs to the federal states, unless there's an explicit authorization for federalization in federal law during times of war or national emergencies.
The conducting of a military operation on city streets is no picnic, and Newsom wasn't having it. He criticized it as an "unnecessary militarization of Los Angeles" and demanded Trump to halt the operation. The deployment was in response to protests against the US government's hardline immigration policy and ICE immigration raids, with around 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 700 regular infantry being mobilized for deployment in Los Angeles.
Trump had relied on a federal statute that allows the president to use the National Guard to suppress "rebellion" or execute federal laws when regular forces are insufficient. However, Judge Breyer dismissed the deployment as it didn't meet the legal criteria for "rebellion." It seems protests, even angrily voiced ones, don't rise to the level of organized armed resistance required to qualify as "rebellion."
This move by the court isn't entirely unexpected, though. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution preserves state powers not delegated to the federal government, including control over the National Guard, unless there's an explicit authorization for federalization in federal law. It appears Trump overstepped his bounds and violated the Tenth Amendment; nevertheless, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a temporary stay, allowing the deployment to continue while the case is further reviewed.
So there you have it - Trump's National Guard deployment in California isn't exactly legal, not if you ask Judge Charles Breyer. And while the appeal process grinds on, the deployment and the protests continue their dance of opposing forces on the streets of Los Angeles. Stay tuned for more updates!
- California
- Justice
- USA
- Donald Trump
- Los Angeles Protests
[1] Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Courts, Congress, or the President Can’t Infer Powers Not Explicitly Granted[2] Federal statute governing the use of the National Guard - 10 USC 251 et seq.[3] 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals grants temporary stay, allowing National Guard deployment to continue[4] Legal grounds for the court ruling that Trump’s National Guard deployment was unlawful[5] Democratic Leaders Criticize Trump's National Guard Deployment in Califonia as a Political Stunt
The Commission has also been consulted on the draft directive regarding the legal implications of President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California, given the politics surrounding the general-news issue. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution preserves state powers, including control over the National Guard, unless there's an explicit authorization for federalization in federal law, raising questions about the legality of Trump's actions.
