Judge orders Trump to return control of California National Guard to state
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to return control of the California National Guard to the state after finding the U.S. president had overstepped his bounds with the "unlawful" decision to send troops to Los Angeles.
In his ruling, Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California said the troops' presence in Los Angeles has already caused "significant harm" and inflamed tension in the city.
"The federal government cannot be permitted to exceed its bounds and in doing so create the very emergency conditions that it then relies on to justify federal intervention," Breyer wrote.
"The citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city."
The order is set to take effect at noon on Friday. It was a loss for U.S. President Donald Trump, who has maintained thousands of National Guard troops to control protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the country's second-largest city.
WATCH | Trump's pattern of governing by executive order:
Protests, tariffs, borders: Why Trump says everything is an emergency | About That
11 hours ago
Duration 12:03
Description: U.S. President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to respond to immigration protests in California with a rarely used law invoked when the government believes a rebellion is underway. Andrew Chang breaks down how Trump's framing of these protests as an emergency — along with everything from trade deficits to fentanyl — exists as part of a larger pattern of governing by executive order with unchecked power.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom applied for a temporary restraining order to regain control of the troops, which are typically deployed either by the state or at the state's request. He celebrated the judge's decision on Thursday.
"The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets. This win is not just for California, but the nation," he wrote on X.
"It's a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day. End the illegal militarization of Los Angeles now."
Protests during the week have been largely peaceful and smaller in size than they were last Saturday.
Eight National Guard officers standing on the steps to the Federal Building on Los Angeles Street on Thursday weren't immediately aware of the ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
13 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
The great theatre of Donald Trump's U.S. military parade
With armed forces on the streets of cities on both U.S. coasts this weekend, the country is marching into a new American era faster than at the standard military rate of 120 steps per minute. The Saturday evening military parade through Washington to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States Army realizes one of President Donald Trump's fondest hopes: a bravura procession occurring, by coincidence if not by cosmic convergence, on the minor but evocative holiday of Flag Day and on the day he turns 79 years old. It comes as the Marines he has dispatched to Los Angeles continue to patrol the streets, in an uninvited effort to keep the peace that California government officials insist they can achieve themselves. The Army, once commanded by George Washington, and Marines, celebrated in their lyrical hymn for their bravery from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, have special purchase in American sentiment. As a result, their presence in two of the country's most distinctive cities − one of the hard reality of politics, the other of the dreams and mythology stirred by the movie industry − provokes unusually strong feelings. Like almost everything else in a land riven by divisions and disputes, the twin mobilizations have provoked a civilian battle, in part because there are more American troops deployed in Los Angeles than in Syria and Iraq combined, in part because massive displays of military personnel and firepower in American streets are not part of the country's tradition. The President's supporters see the Washington parade as an expression of his power and will, an affirmation of his command of both capital and country in his effort, as the sentiment often is expressed, but not universally embraced, to return the country to its founding values. Mr. Trump's opponents see it as a pair of needless assertions of executive excess in direct contradiction to the republican principles of those very founders. With arrays of helicopters, tanks and other battle vehicles, there will be great theatre in Saturday night's procession, a marked contrast with the drama on the streets of Los Angeles. But at the centre of these stereo spectacles is the President himself, playing his constitutional role of commander in chief in a fashion that provokes debate about whether he does so in a way that is in conflict with the constitutional principles his predecessors have respected. In truth, politics, the presidency, and the military are more intertwined than commonly acknowledged − ties that Mr. Trump, who attended a military academy in his high-school years but received deferments from service during the Vietnam War, seems determined to reinforce. The country traditionally has honoured military service, and for a generation in the middle of the 20th century, it was regarded almost as an indispensable requirement for high elected office. A dozen presidents, including George Washington, Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, were generals. Several more, including Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, burnished their images or made their names in battle. Overall, 31 presidents had military service, and most presidents from the Civil War to the end of the 19th century were veterans of that bloody conflict. But four of the past five presidents had no military record; the only exception was George W. Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard. But for all that military service − for all the ubiquitous rote 'thank-you-for-your-service' greetings to Americans in uniform today − there has been a skepticism about great shows of military strength, much the way wealthy members of the country's establishment often have been wary of displaying their riches. Opinion: For Trump, the L.A. protests are an opportunity to wield power and spread fear Eisenhower, a five-star general before becoming president, brushed aside as unseemly suggestions that the country conduct a military parade during the Cold War. He thought it indecorous and, because the United States was the predominant superpower, redundant. 'The notion of putting tanks on the street as a symbol of our power is unseemly,' former Republican senator William Cohen of Maine, a onetime defence secretary, said in an interview. 'Nations run by autocrats do that. We haven't. I'm happy to celebrate the people, Black and white, who have served in the Army. But it's overload to put tanks on the street.' It's also expensive. For years, deep, unsightly ruts remained in the streets of Washington created by heavy vehicles in the parade to commemorate the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Estimates put the cost of the road repairs alone for this procession at US$16-million. Large demonstrations of military power have been undertaken by the old Soviet Union, China and North Korea, often to smug ridicule in the West. 'These parades are designed in North Korea to reinforce the army's loyalty to the leader and to praise the leader,' said George Lopez, a Notre Dame University international-relations scholar who was part of the United Nations panel of experts monitoring Pyongyang's violation of sanctions growing out of its nuclear program. 'This isn't something we do,' he said. 'We aren't having legions of people returning from a conflict right now. It's unclear to whom we are sending the message that we are powerful.' Trump friends and foes alike believe the message of the march of thousands of troops in period uniforms from the Revolutionary War to today (plus one dog, a Blue Heeler named Doc Holliday) is to the American people. 'This has nothing to do with patriotism and everything to do with Donald Trump getting his wish to politicize our military in order to advance his personal political agenda,' said Democratic Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who had four tours of Marine Corps duty in Iraq. 'For anyone who doesn't know, troops hate marching in parades.'
The Market Online
31 minutes ago
- The Market Online
@ the Bell: Middle East tensions rattle TSX as oil prices surge
Canada's main stock index fell on Friday as investors sought refuge in safer assets amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. The drop followed Israel's extensive airstrikes on Iran, which targeted nuclear and missile facilities to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. In response, Iran launched a barrage of 100 drones. The rising geopolitical tensions in the oil-rich region drove crude oil prices sharply higher. US markets were on track for gains on the week before Friday's selloff. President Donald Trump, decided to rile Iran in a social media post demanding it come to a nuclear deal 'before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire', he wrote. Protests are planned across the US this weekend as Americans aren't happy about more than $45 million of their tax dollars going toward his birthday parade, for some reason. Who said Friday the 13th was unlucky? The Canadian dollar traded for 73.59 cents US compared to 73.50 cents US on Thursday. US crude futures traded US$5.41 higher at US$73.45 a barrel, and the Brent contract rose US$5.27 to US$74.63 a barrel. The price of gold was up US$53.44 to US$3,432.89. In world markets, the Nikkei was down 338.84 points to ¥37,834.25, the Hang Seng was down 142.82 points to HK$23,892.56 the FTSE was down 34.29 points to ₤8,850.63, and the DAX was down 255.22 points to €23,516.23. The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. For full disclaimer information, please click here.
Winnipeg Free Press
31 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement — the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it — are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' 'The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options. ___ AP college sports:
