A Hot Button Issue: Trump Sends Troops to LA Amid Immigration Protests - A Legal Analysis
U.S. legal perspectives on Trump's military troop mobilization
By Leah Nowak, NY
Connect Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Email Print Copy Link
The current political landscape is ablaze with controversy as President Donald Trump orders a mobilization of soldiers to Los Angeles, defying California Governor Gavin Newsom. This unprecedented move comes on the heels of immigration protests, raising questions about the legality of such actions.
For several years, President Trump has flirted with the idea of federal intervention within the country. During the summer of 2020, he threatened to use federal troops to quell unrest sparked by the police killing of George Floyd. Fast forward to today, and Trump is again seeking to impose military might, deploying over 4,700 National Guard troops and Marine soldiers to Los Angeles to quash protests against ICE raids.
Politics Protests in LA: A Looming Conflict
California's governor, however, sees Trump's actions as a violation of federal law and his state's sovereignty. Newsom swiftly filed a lawsuit against the president and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging unlawful action. Trump, on the other hand, describes the protests as a "rebellion against the U.S. government."
Law and Order, or Breaking the Law?
In theory, the involvement of federal troops in domestic police matters is prohibited. Yet, there are exceptions. One such exception is the so-called "Insurrection Act," which allows the president to deploy troops to suppress riots, rebellions, or insurrections. This controversial law has been used sparsely, with the last recorded instance being in 1992.
The California governor's lawsuit centers on the claim that Trump is incorrectly using Section 12406 of Title 10 of the United States Code, assuming it allows direct participation of troops in civilian law enforcement. In actuality, this section permits the National Guard only to protect other forces, such as ICE agents, during enforcement actions. Despite this, Trump has not ruled out the possibility of invoking the "Insurrection Act" in the future.
The Power of the National Guard
While traditional executions of the "Insurrection Act" allow military personnel to engage in civilian law enforcement, Title 10 does not. The National Guard and Marine soldiers stationed in Los Angeles can only provide protective services to other forces, such as ICE, during their enforcement actions.
Trump's use of the National Guard is not without precedent, yet it presents an unusual situation. Typically, control of the National Guard lies with the governor of each state, but in certain emergency situations like national disasters or war, the president can deploy them without the governor's consent. However, utilizing this power in the wake of protests is highly unconventional, with the last recorded instance occurring in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson overstepped California Governor Edmund G. Brown's authority during civil rights marches.
The deployment of troops in Los Angeles could potentially extend to other cities across the nation, given the presence of protests in cities like New York, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Trump's order authorizes troops to protect ICE agents in any location where protests against their actions occur or may occur.
The legal ramifications of Trump's actions will be decided in court, with Governor Newsom's temporary restraining order to halt the action unsuccessful thus far. Further lawsuits may arise, as protesters seek redress for their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
Source: ntv.de
- Los Angeles
- Donald Trump
- Protests
- US Military
- California
Additional Insights:
Overall, the Insurrection Act of 1807, codified in Title 10, United States Code, Sections 331 through 335, provides the legal framework for a U.S. President to deploy troops for domestic enforcement during specific circumstances, allowing exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. Key provisions include Sections 331, 332, 333, and 334, outlining presidential power to call the militia, deploy forces to suppress rebellions, enforce federal authority, and issue proclamations ordering insurgents to disperse before using military force, respectively.
Despite the ongoing controversy over President Donald Trump's deployment of soldiers to Los Angeles amid immigration protests, it's essential to note that the Commission, in its role, has been consulted on the draft directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation, a matter that involves general-news and crime-and-justice considerations.
As the legal situation unfolds in California, characterized by protests, lawsuits, and potential implications for the First Amendment rights of citizens, the protection of workers from ionizing radiation remains a significant issue that requires attention and rigorous discussion in politics and beyond.
