Federal court to decide if Trump can override Newsom, deploy National Guard in California riots
An appellate court will hear arguments Tuesday in California over Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of illegally deploying the National Guard to quell anti-immigration enforcement protests and riots in Los Angeles County.
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is set to decide whether Trump can continue to use thousands of National Guard members and hundreds of Marines to guard parts of the county.
The panel comprises two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee.
Hours after a lower court judge ruled in favor of Newsom last week and found that Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's deployment of National Guard soldiers was illegal, the three judges temporarily paused that decision.
The panel will now decide if it wants to extend that pause.
In court papers, Department of Justice attorneys said Trump and Hegseth were using the military in California strictly to protect federal personnel and federal buildings.
They said the provision of Title 10 that Trump cited in a proclamation when he federalized the National Guard allows presidents to activate the soldiers without a governor's consent.
Newsom fiercely opposed Trump federalizing guard members, and attorneys for California argued that the decision exacerbated the unrest and led to exponentially more rioting incidents. The attorneys said that regardless of the severity of the rioting, it did not "remotely" meet the criteria required under the Title 10 provision.
"As the district court found based on the record evidence, the circumstances here do not remotely amount to a 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion' or a situation that renders the President 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,'" the attorneys wrote.
Since June 7, Trump has federalized 4,000 National Guard members and enlisted 700 Marines to offer support in California as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials carry out raids and arrest allegedly illegal immigrants, including dozens with criminal records.
An ICE official said in an affidavit that National Guard members have been "essential" to providing extra support around the 300 N. Los Angeles Federal Building, which has been the sight of frequent protests and unrest since the immigration raids began.
"Prior to the National Guard's deployment, rioters and protestors assaulted federal, state, and local law enforcement officers with rocks, fireworks, and other objects. They also damaged federal property by spray painting death threats to federal law enforcement officers," the ICE official wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
Sacramento's Cosumnes River Preserve could be impacted by U.S. sale of federal land for housing
U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Senate is considering selling over 16 million acres of federal land in California to turn into housing, including in Sacramento. The plan is part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," or budget reconciliation bill, which proposed putting over 250 million acres of public land in western states for sale, including land governed by the Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service. The spot in Sacramento that could be impacted is the Consumnes River Preserve. "We were out there for about three hours this morning and it's a prize. It's really something worth saving," said Josh Schermerhorn, who was enjoying the Consumnes River Preserve with his wife Kathy on Tuesday. Senators who support this bill said selling federal land will generate upward of $10 billion for the government. "The thought of the sale of public lands is pretty un-American," said Katie Hawkins, California program director of the Outdoor Alliance. Hawkins said they are suspicious of the proposal because there are no safeguards in the plan that would prevent pretty much anyone from buying it. "Whether it's extraction, timber sales or if it's development for wealthy developers or even foreign interest," said Hawkins. Her other concern is whether the land is really meant to be built on. Historically, the area has seen flooding with waters spreading across nearby wetlands and rice fields. "I think flooding is natural," said kayaker Kather Schermerhorn. "This is an area that's not hurting anybody and to let it be natural." Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, has been pushing for the federal land to be sold, but not everyone in his party is on board. "It is so important that the acquisition or disposition of any of these lands be made only after significant and meaningful local input," said Republican California Rep. Kevin Kiley. Kiley openly opposed the idea on the House floor several weeks ago. The House voted against it, but the proposal is still alive on the Senate side. "We have other places where housing could be built and it doesn't have to be on a pristine, precious preserve," said Kathy. A staff member from one of the 10 organizations within the Consumnes River Preserve Partnership told CBS13 that the land is not meant to be built on and thinks solving the housing crisis should not cost Americans losing natural gems. Other California land that could be impacted includes parts of Lake Tahoe, Yosemite and Joshua Tree. Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla sent CBS13 this statement about the proposal: "Make no mistake, this latest Republican proposal is riddled with anti-environment provisions meant to create the largest public land sell off in recent memory to subsidize their tax cuts for billionaires. If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized. Our public lands and natural spaces are some of our nation's greatest gifts and I will do everything I can do to protect them." The Senate has until July 4 to decide on this bill.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are Lindsey Graham's contortions about to prod Trump into Russia sanctions?
Has Lindsey Graham been playing the long game with Donald Trump? Graham, who has calibrated his pro-Ukraine support since the inauguration to stay in the US president's orbit, has said he expects this week that the Senate will begin moving his Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill that he says would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Vladimir Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India. The fate of the bill still depends on whether Trump gives the go-ahead, according to congressional insiders. But Trump's growing frustration with Putin has emboldened some in the GOP to begin speaking out on the conflict again – with the notoriously flexible Graham leading the charge for tougher sanctions on the Kremlin. Is it nearing a critical mass moment in Congress – a body that has largely abdicated its role in foreign policy since Trump's inauguration? 'I hope so, because it is the right action to take,' said Don Bacon, a Republican House representative who has criticised the White House on its Ukraine policy. 'But it is risky to speak for others. I know where I stand. The Senate has an overwhelming majority in support of sanctions and we should move out. It is in our national security interests that Russia fails here and it should be obvious that Putin doesn't want peace, but wants dominance over Ukraine.' Trump's shift on Russia has come as his efforts to negotiate a speedy ceasefire have failed. Talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday led to little progress, and continued outreach from his personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the Kremlin has not brought concessions from Vladimir Putin. A leaked draft of Russia's demands at the negotiations depicted a capitulation: withdrawal from Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia, no Nato membership for Ukraine, caps on the size of the country's military. Yet it has specifically been the bombardment of cities that has upset Trump, proving once again that Putin has managed to be his own worst enemy when it comes to negotiations. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,' Trump said last week, repeating part of the comments in public. 'He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' As the White House looks for means to increase pressure on Russia and its enablers like China, the bill backed by Graham and the Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal has become a convenient tool to do just that. One person in GOP circles said that the White House was considering letting Republicans 'vote their conscience' – in effect allowing Congress to support the bill without facing blowback from the Trump administration. But that would involve a final decision by the White House, and Trump has still not openly backed new sanctions as more than just a contingency. 'Despite support of 82 or so senators, the bill can't move without support in the House, and the speaker of the House won't move it without the president's support,' said Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. 'And it's not clear the president has really decided Putin's the impediment to a ceasefire. Additionally, the Senate will be consumed with passing the reconciliation bill for the next few weeks.' But as of Tuesday, the leadership appeared ready to move forward. The weather vane for Trump's gusty foreign policy on Ukraine has been Graham, a veteran political survivor who has built a strong relationship with the president through relentless flattery and has tailored his views to match Trump's when convenient. On Ukraine, he has been so bendable that he could not be broken. 'They play a very careful game because they don't want to upset their relationship with the big guy,' said one person knowledgable about discussions among congressional Republicans. 'At the same time, I do think his heart and his head is in the right place. Just really not quite his own courage.' Graham's interventions have been meaningful. He was instrumental in pushing the minerals deal that Ukraine signed with the US as a way to get Trump's buy-in for its defense. Over a game of golf, he pitched Trump on the 'trillions' in mineral wealth in Ukraine and later showed him a map (Trump said he wanted 'half' according to one account). At the same time, he publicly fumed about Volodymyr Zelenskyy following the disastrous White House meeting of late February when Trump and JD Vance argued with the wartime leader. 'I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again,' Graham said, also suggesting that the Ukrainian leader should resign. (Zelenskyy shot back later that he was ready to offer him citizenship if he wanted to discuss who should lead Ukraine). Graham's latitude has stunned some of his former colleagues. A former colleague who had worked with Graham on Ukraine policy said that his remarks about Zelenskyy had given him 'whiplash'. Asked if Graham had a coherent strategy to influence Trump, the person said: 'Graham's strategy is to put Graham first.' 'I think that he understands the big game,' said another person familiar with discussions over the bill. 'He would like the policy to be sound, which means [putting sanctions] on the Kremlin. But he values his relationship with the president and that that trumps the first calculation. So if he really feels the president's against, he's not going to go for it.' Now, with Trump signaling greater readiness for sanctions, Graham has traveled to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy (all smiles) and to Brussels, where he and the EU president, Ursula von der Leyen, discussed potential EU and US sanctions packages to turn up the pressure on Moscow. 'Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,' said John Hardie, the Russia program deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative thinktank. 'Carrots clearly haven't worked, so it's time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia's oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.' Hardie and others noted that Trump could increase pressure on Russia without the Senate bill. 'If President Trump were to decide to go the pressure route, he already has the tools at his disposal to do so,' said Hardie. 'For example, he could immediately designate the rest of Russia's shadow fleet and other non-western entities facilitating Russian oil exports and could join with G7 partners in lowering the G7 oil price cap.' And even if the sanctions are passed, they will ultimately rely on Trump's decision to enforce them. 'The Senate is prepared either way,' Graham wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. 'I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow's energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up. If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr Putin's war machine would grind to a halt.'
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration notches first big win in assault on higher education
The Trump administration scored its most significant legal victory in its sweeping effort to reshape American higher education when a federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by faculty groups over the government's cuts to Columbia University's federal funding. The lawsuit concerned the Trump administration's cuts of $400m worth of federal funding to Columbia on the grounds it tolerated antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Columbia largely accepted the government's terms for restoring funding – in an agreement widely panned as a capitulation of its own academic freedom – several days before the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued the Trump administration over the cuts. The judge in the case, Mary Kay Vyskocil of the southern district of New York, ruled that the faculty unions had no 'standing' to bring the suit and had not clearly indicated how the administration had broken the law. Related: Trump officials cutting $1bn in NIH grants is 'void and illegal', judge rules 'It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later,' the judge, a Trump appointee, wrote in her 30-page ruling. 'Plaintiffs have not established their standing to litigate this case, let alone any violation of any law.' She seemed to accept the government's prerogative to withhold funding and its argument that Columbia had enabled antisemitism to fester on campus. She also noted that Columbia had remained 'conspicuously absent' from the case. The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment. That funding has not yet been restored though the education secretary, Linda McMahon, recently said that Columbia had 'made great progress' and that the administration was considering a consent decree with the university. The administration has also cut billions in funding to several other universities, warning dozens more that it is investigating them over alleged antisemitism on campuses. So far, Harvard, which has lost more than $3bn in federal funding, is the only university to sue the administration in two separate lawsuits, one over funding cuts and another against the administration's ban on Harvard's ability to enroll international students. On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts extended a temporary block on the administration's order concerning Harvard's foreign students. The AAUP has filed three other lawsuits against the Trump administration – over its ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; the attempted deportation of pro-Palestinian students; and funding cuts at Harvard. The group has vowed to fight on. 'This is a disappointing ruling, but by no means the end of the fight,' Todd Wolfson, the AAUP president said. 'The Trump administration's threats and coercion at Columbia University are part of an authoritarian agenda that extends far beyond Columbia. Ultimately, lifesaving research, basic civil liberties and higher education in communities across the country are all on the line. Faculty, students and the American public will not stand for it. We will continue to fight back.' Protect Democracy, the group representing the AAUP and AFT, said it would appeal Monday's ruling and vowed to 'continue to fight to stop the administration from using public funding as a cudgel to consolidate power over higher education', it said in a statement. 'This is a deeply problematic decision that ignores what this is all about – a government attempt to punish a university over student protests that galvanized a national movement in opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza,' said Radhika Sainath, senior managing attorney at Palestine Legal, a group advocating for pro-Palestinian voices on US campuses which had filed a brief in support of the AAUP's lawsuit. 'The court uncritically takes the government's line for granted, that speech activity critical of Israel is inherently anti-Jewish – though Jewish students and professors make up a large percentage of those speaking up for Palestinian human rights.'
