U.S. judge delays additional rulings in case against Trump's military deployment in LA
California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win in the case.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles.
Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already under way' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation.
The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids.
The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Despite the appellate setback, California's attorneys are expected to ask Breyer on Friday for a preliminary injunction returning control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days, to Newsom.
Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources.
The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents in SUVs and cargo vans had gathered with their faces covered a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did.
Los Angeles Dodgers deny ICE agents access to stadium grounds
On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention.
Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.'
'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops.
For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965.
Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. 'All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' Trump wrote.
Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' Newsom said.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was travelling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
38 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from immigration detention
JENA, La. (AP) — Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was released Friday from federal immigration detention, freed after three months by a judge's ruling after becoming a symbol of President Donald Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The former Columbia University graduate student left a federal facility in Louisiana on Friday. He is expected to head to New York to reunite with his U.S. citizen wife and newborn son.
Vancouver Sun
2 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Letters to The Sun: Community services not keeping up with development in Vancouver
Being a long-time Vancouver resident, I've seen the evolution of the city firsthand. There are so many amazing attributes to enjoy and be proud of, but the current direction of city council and development at all costs is not one of them. They work to build more housing — great, but then delay the needed investments in renewals for community services and amenities, which is a travesty. Add 24,000 people to the old Jericho lands, 64,000 people to the Broadway corridor, three towers at Commercial and Broadway, perfect. A replacement 50-metre pool at the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, I don't think so. A new Britannia Community Centre, delay that. More park and recreation amenities, no, let's just cram the people in. Given this current trajectory, the Vancouver of tomorrow will be a far cry in terms of livability from what people know today. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Levi Higgs, east Vancouver B.C. Ferries announced on June 10 that the bidding process to replace four aging vessels resulted in contracts going to China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards. Since then, loud accusations have come from all corners and levels of British Columbia's political spectrum, with many incendiary comments from professional pundits and members of the public. Many declare that the vessels should be built in Canada, although no Canadian yard answered the invitation to bid. Then come claims that China is untrustworthy in trade tariffs and international politics. Some dissenters worry about the quality of steel used in Chinese shipyards, along with perceived lack of expertise of welders and other trades. Having spent a large chunk of my life working on freighters and tankers criss-crossing the oceans, it's amazing to hear so much negative rhetoric from those who should know better. Hardly ever mentioned is that China has been the world's leading commercial shipbuilder for many years, and is far more cost-competitive than anywhere else. Latest figures show China accounting for 62 per cent of global shipbuilding orders. China produces and delivers to all parts of the world just about everything used in our daily lives, from vehicles to appliances to electronics, and everything in between. China manufactures the goods and builds the ships to transport them — they also build huge gantry cranes that load and discharge containers at ports worldwide. These cranes arrive from China on purpose-built heavy-lift vessels, of course. Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump blustered that he would revitalize the shipbuilding in the U.S., but industry experts advise that it is five times as expensive to build comparable ships in America than in China. I rest my case. Bernie Smith, Parksville British Columbians should be concerned about the B.C. government's reported plan to purchase ferries from a Chinese state-linked shipyard. This raises serious ethical and security concerns, especially given China's increasingly aggressive behaviour in the Indo-Pacific, including its harassment of neighbouring countries and threats to regional stability. Just last year, Canadian naval vessels were confronted by Chinese warships in international waters near Taiwan. It would be troubling for B.C. to direct public funds to a shipbuilder linked to a regime known for threatening peace and democracy. There are also cybersecurity risks. Modern ferries are not just mechanical — they rely on embedded digital systems that could be vulnerable to interference, particularly if sourced from authoritarian states. Premier David Eby should cancel the deal and commit to sourcing from democratic countries instead. Public infrastructure should reflect our values and protect our security, not compromise them. Gabriel Yiu, Vancouver Re: Alberta minister 'optimistic' B.C. tanker ban will be lifted During a visit to Prince Rupert, Alberta's minister of transportation and economic corridors, Devin Dreeshen, questioned why there is a ban on oil tanker ships to and from that port but no ban on similar ships at the Port of Vancouver. Dreeshen is too young to remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill that fouled the northwest coast. The moratorium is its legacy. Nevertheless, Dreeshen pointed out that American oil tanker ships routinely carry Alaskan crude oil down the west coast. I wonder if the diluted bitumen from Alberta poses more of an environmental risk in the event of a tanker spill than a spill of Alaskan crude oil? After passing new legislation to expedite national projects, I expect the new Mark Carney federal government will lift the northwest oil shipping ban by pledging to expand the 'world class' emergency response infrastructure at the Port of Vancouver to include the Port of Prince Rupert. Derek Wilson, Port Moody
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
U.S. federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students
Rowers paddle down the Charles River near the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on March 7, 2017. (Charles Krupa / AP Photo) BOSTON — A U.S. federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves Harvard's ability to host foreign students while the case is decided, but it falls short of resolving all of Harvard's legal hurdles to hosting international students. Notably, Burroughs said the federal government still has authority to review Harvard's ability to host international students through normal processes outlined in law. Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency abruptly withdrew the school's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas, skirting most of its usual procedures. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students - about a quarter of its total enrollment - to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard. The university said it was experiencing illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies related to campus protests, admissions, hiring and more. Burroughs temporarily had halted the government's action hours after Harvard sued. Less than two weeks later, in early June, U.S. President Donald Trump tried a new strategy. He issued a proclamation to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move, saying the president was attempting an end-run around the temporary court order. Burroughs temporarily blocked Trump's proclamation as well. That emergency block remains in effect, and Burroughs did not address the proclamation in her order Friday. 'We expect the judge to issue a more enduring decision in the coming days,' Harvard said Friday in an email to international students. 'Our Schools will continue to make contingency plans toward ensuring that our international students and scholars can pursue their academic work to the fullest extent possible, should there be a change to student visa eligibility or their ability to enroll at Harvard.' Students in limbo The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America's oldest and wealthiest university. The Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion,' the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said. Still, admissions consultants and students have indicated most current and prospective Harvard scholars are holding out hope they'll be able to attend the university. For one prospective graduate student, an admission to Harvard's Graduate School of Education had rescued her educational dreams. Huang, who asked to be identified only by her surname for fear of being targeted, had seen her original doctoral offer at Vanderbilt University rescinded after federal cuts to research and programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Harvard stepped in a few weeks later with a scholarship she couldn't refuse. She rushed to schedule her visa interview in Beijing. More than a month after the appointment, despite court orders against the Trump administration's policies, she still hasn't heard back. 'Your personal effort and capability means nothing in this era,' Huang said in a social media post. 'Why does it have to be so hard to go to school?' An ongoing battle Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after the university rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than US$2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. On Friday, the president said in a post on Truth Social that the administration has been working with Harvard to address 'their largescale improprieties' and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,' Trump's post said. Trump's administration first targeted Harvard's international students in April. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. By Collin Binkley.
