California Asks Judge to Limit ‘Unchecked' Use of Trump Troops
California said the Trump administration 's deployment of the National Guard and US Marines to respond to protests in Los Angeles was illegal and cannot continue 'unchecked.'
Attorneys for Governor Gavin Newsom and California urged a federal judge to limit military involvement in the protests in a court filing Thursday. They argued that allowing the deployment to continue over the state's objections would set a dangerous precedent and afford the president an 'astonishingly broad grant of executive authority.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
28 minutes ago
As legal fight over Guard deployment plays out, Noem vows to continue Trump's immigration crackdown
LOS ANGELES -- Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged to carry on with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown despite waves of unrest across the U.S. Hours after her comment Thursday, a judge directed the president to return control to California over National Guard troops he deployed after protests erupted over the immigration crackdown, but an appeals court quickly put the brakes on that and temporarily blocked the order that was to go into effect on Friday. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled a hearing on the matter for Tuesday. The federal judge's temporary restraining order said the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded President Donald Trump's statutory authority. The order applied only to the National Guard troops and not Marines who were also deployed to the LA protests. The judge said he would not rule on the Marines because they were not out on the streets yet. Gov. Gavin Newsom who had asked the judge for an emergency stop to troops helping carry out immigration raids, had praised the order before it was blocked saying 'today was really about a test of democracy, and today we passed the test" and had said he would be redeploying Guard soldiers to 'what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said the president acted within his powers and that the federal judge's order 'puts our brave federal officials in danger. The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief." The developments unfolded as protests continued in cities nationwide and the country braced for major demonstrations against Trump over the weekend. Noem said the immigration raids that fueled the protests would move forward and agents have thousands of targets. 'This is only going to continue until we have peace on the streets of Los Angeles,' she said during a news conference that was interrupted by shouting from U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was forcibly removed from the event. Newsom has warned that the military intervention is part of a broader effort by Trump to overturn norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. He also said sending Guard troops on the raids has further inflamed tensions in LA. So far the protests have been centered mostly in downtown near City Hall and a federal detention center where some immigrants are being held. Much of the sprawling city has been spared from the protests. On the third night of an 8 p.m. curfew, Los Angeles police arrested several demonstrators who refused orders to leave a street downtown. Earlier in the night, officers with the Department of Homeland Security deployed flash bangs to disperse a crowd that had gathered near the jail, sending protesters sprinting away. Those incidents were outliers. As with the past two nights, the hourslong demonstrations remained peaceful and upbeat, drawing a few hundred attendees who marched through downtown chanting, dancing and poking fun at the Trump administration's characterization of the city as a 'war zone.' Elsewhere, demonstrations have picked up across the U.S., emerging in more than a dozen major cities. Some have led to clashes with police and hundreds have been arrested. The immigration agents conducting the raids in LA are 'putting together a model and a blueprint' for other communities, Noem said. She pledged that federal authorities 'are not going away' even though, she said, officers have been hit with rocks and bricks and assaulted. She said people with criminal records who are in the country illegally and violent protesters will 'face consequences.' 'Just because you think you're here as a citizen, or because you're a member of a certain group or you're not a citizen, it doesn't mean that you're going to be protected and not face consequences from the laws that this country stands for," she said. Noem criticized the Padilla's interruption, calling it "inappropriate.' A statement from her agency said the two met after the news conference for about 15 minutes, but it also chided him for 'disrespectful political theater.' Padilla said later that he was demanding answers about the 'increasingly extreme immigration enforcement actions' and only wanted to ask Noem a question. He said he was handcuffed but not arrested. 'If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, I can only imagine what they are doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers throughout the Los Angeles community,' he said. The administration has said it is willing to send troops to other cities to assist with immigration enforcement and controlling disturbances — in line with what Trump promised during last year's campaign. Some 2,000 Guard soldiers were in the nation's second-largest city and were soon to be joined by 2,000 more, along with about 700 Marines, said Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who is in charge of the operation. About 500 of the Guard troops deployed to the Los Angeles protests have been trained to accompany agents on immigration operations, Sherman said Wednesday. The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers, but any arrests must be made by law enforcement. With more demonstrations expected over the weekend, and the possibility that Trump could send troops to other states for immigration enforcement, governors are weighing what to do. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has put 5,000 National Guard members on standby in cities where demonstrations are planned. In other Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they may deploy troops. A group of Democratic governors earlier signed a statement this week calling Trump's deployments 'an alarming abuse of power.' There have been about 470 arrests since Saturday, the vast majority of which were for failing to leave the area at the request of law enforcement, according to the police department. There have been a handful of more serious charges, including for assault against officers and for possession of a Molotov cocktail and a gun. Nine officers have been hurt, mostly with minor injuries. ___ Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Seewer from Toledo, Ohio. Associated Press writers Julie Watson in San Diego, Jesse Bedayn in Denver, and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, and Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Trump's Troop Deployment to Los Angeles Illegal?
A federal judge issued an order to block Donald Trump from deploying California National Guard troops to crack down on Los Angeles protests or to stand guard over his immigration raids. Ruling Thursday night, United States District Judge Charles Breyer found that 'an injunction restraining the president's use of military force in Los Angeles is in the public interest' and ordered Trump to return control of thousands of National Guard troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The injunction came in response to a California lawsuit claiming Trump is violating bedrock American law and the constitution. However, the president's commitment of 700 Marines to the streets of L.A. is apparently ruling was met by an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, which has now stayed the lower court's injunction until at least June 17. The back-and-forth court battle over Trump's troop deployments poses a thorny question: Can the president of the United States really unleash the military on U.S citizens? Here's what you need to know: Trump, an authoritarian, has long dreamed of using the military to counter his domestic opposition. The pretext for Trump's move is unrest following protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. ICE agents have been making provocative arrests and detentions of community members in Los Angeles, including of garment workers downtown and day laborers at an area Home Depot. These protests were largely peaceful, but in several locations, devolved into skirmishes between agitators on one side and cops, sheriff's deputies, and/or paramilitary federal agents on the other. The unrest had largely calmed over the weekend, until Trump decided to federalize units of the California National Guard and send them to the streets of L.A. Trump mobilized as many as 4,000 members of the California National Guard along with 700 Marines to deploy in Los Angeles. The military described the National Guard's mission as 'protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.' The Posse Comitatus Act stands as America's legal guarantee against military occupation. Like so much of American history, passage of the Posse Comitatus Act is tarnished by racism. This law dates from the late 1870s. It was born out of backlash to Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War, at a time when former Confederates bridled under occupation by federal troops. These forces, for example, ensured access to the ballot box by Black voters. The act's passage barred the Army from being deployed in a domestic law enforcement capacity; it effectively ended Reconstruction and ushered in decades of Jim Crow segregation in the South. Over time, the law's restriction on the standing military being deployed inside the United States became bedrock U.S. law and a marker of state sovereignty. It is seen as a vital check on authoritarian abuses by a U.S. president, and it allows the military to focus on defeating foreign adversaries, leaving policework to cops. The act has been updated periodically, including as recently as 2021 to clarify that its restrictions apply even to the Space Force. (The phrase 'Posse Comitatus' itself is Latin for 'power of the county' and has a complicated legacy dating back to English common law.) National Guard forces are usually under the control of state governors. They have long played a role in responding to state-level natural disasters and public unrest. Under state control, National Guard forces are not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act. State-ordered National Guard deployments have also been controversial. In one of the darkest episodes in recent American history, National Guard troops, called up by the Governor of Ohio to crack down on protesters at Kent State in 1970, opened fire on anti-war activists, killing four and injuring nine. To federalize the National Guard, as Trump did this over the weekend, the president invoked an authority established in Title 10 of the federal code. Under that provision, the National Guard may be pressed into federal service under one of three conditions: The U.S. 'is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation.' There is 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority' of the federal government. The president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' In any of these cases, the president 'may call into federal service' the requisite National Guard forces to 'repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' Invocation of this provision has little case history; Richard Nixon used it to call in the National Guard to deliver mail during a postal strike in 1970. But in all cases, the statute states, orders to the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the states' — appearing to require agreement between the president and the governor, which does not exist in this case. The state of California sued in federal court in San Francisco to block Trump's National Guard deployment as 'unlawful,' insisting his Title 10 authority is a nonstarter in the case of the Los Angeles protests. 'To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles,' the lawsuit states. It describes instead common 'civil unrest' that should be handled by 'state and local authorities.' The lawsuit underscores that Gov. Newsom was not a party to Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard: 'The governor never issued such an order or gave consent.'California is making the case that troops under Trump's command are already unlawfully integrated into a policing function. 'Military forces are pervasively intertwined with civilian law enforcement activities,' the latest update to suit argues. 'Armed troops are working side by side with ICE agents in conducting arrests and raids in the streets, homes, and workplaces of Los Angeles.'In the court of public opinion, the state is highlighting past comments by Trump and members of his cabinet to argue that administration officials know what they're doing is illegal. A post on the governor's website, calls back to Trump's comments during the 2020 federal incursion into downtown Portland, Oregon. 'We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at the time. 'We can't call in the National Guard, unless we are requested by a governor.' Likewise Kristi Noem, Trump's Homeland Security Secretary, said in 2024 as governor of South Dakota that a president seizing control of National Guard forces would be an unacceptable affront: 'If Joe Biden federalizes the National Guard,' she said, 'that would be a direct attack on states' rights.' In deciding to impose an injunction, Judge Breyer wrote that California had 'shown a likelihood of prevailing' on their argument that Trump's federalization of the National Guard was 'not in fact not lawful, both exceeding the scope of his authority and violating the Tenth Amendment.' (The judge leaned hard on the that amendment which reserves many powers for the states: 'It is well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment,' he wrote.) Breyer recognized that the Trump administration has an ''interest in protecting federal agents and property' but insisted that the 'the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city.' He added that the state faces harm of being deprived of 'thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions.' The judge underscored as well that that Trump's troop deployment threatens to 'chill legitimate First Amendment expression.' He wrote that he was 'troubled' by the administration's stance that 'protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.' The temporary injunction forbids Trump from calling up the National Guard and directs Trump to return control over these forces to Newsom. The ruling by the district judge was immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which quickly stayed the injunction Thursday, pending a hearing Tuesday, June 17. It is unclear what authority Trump has invoked to deploy active duty Marines to Los Angeles. A statement by U.S. Northern Command says the Marines' mission is to 'seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces' — i.e. the National Guard troops. The state of California lawsuit claims the Marine mobilization is a violation of Posse Comitatus. (It also argued that using federalized National Guard troops as military police violates that act.)The suit reads, in part: 'The Marine Corps' deployment for law enforcement purposes is… unlawful. For more than a century, the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement.' The judge in San Francisco did not make any ruling as to the Posse Comitatus Act arguments 'at this early moment in the litigation,' explaining that both parties would soon have an opportunity to make their arguments in court. The nativist Trump White House adviser Stephen Miller has been posting incessantly on X about the unrest in Los Angeles as an 'insurrection.' Trump has also called protesters 'insurrectionists.'This over-the-top rhetoric has dangerous implications. The president has a trump card he can play if he seeks to expand this foray into martial law. That is the Insurrection Act. This law gives the president authority to side-step the restrictions of Posse Comitatus and to direct active duty military to suppress insurrection, domestic violence, and even 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages.' The act was pieced together from 1792 to 1871, and the liberal Brennan Center for Justice describes it as so 'poorly' crafted and 'bafflingly broad' as to 'leave virtually everything up to the discretion of the president.' The law is contradictory. Some provisions require the participation of the governor and/or legislature in the target state. Other parts give the president sole decision-making power. The Insurrection Act has been used both ways. It was famously invoked by President Dwight Eisenhower to enforce desegregation in the South after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Its most recent use was in Los Angeles in 1992, by President George H.W. Bush, during the Rodney King riots — a move requested by the state. Lyndon B. Johnson was the last president to invoke it against the wishes of a governor, sending in troops to protect Civil Rights marchers in segregationist Alabama in 1965. Trump has been coy so far about his intentions, saying of the act from the Oval Office this week: 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see.' Under Trump, any invocation of the Insurrection Act would mark a dangerous step on a path toward dictatorship. In theory, the law only empowers the president to use federal military might to support local law enforcement, or ensure that the constitutional rights of citizens are defended, not to implement martial law. In practice, Trump was given near-kingly authorities last year by the Supreme Court in its immunity decision that shields the president from criminal prosecution. His administration has threatened to arrest Gov. Newsom, and even handcuffed one of the state's U.S. Senators, Alex Padilla, when he attempted to ask Noem a question during a press conference, during which the Homeland Security secretary proclaimed that the federal government was on a mission to 'liberate' Los Angeles, from the 'socialist' leadership of its mayor and does not see himself bound by any precedent or legal norm. And he is plainly not grounded in reality, rather in delusions of grandeur. In posts on Truth Social, Trump has written of his militarization as an effort to 'liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.' On Wednesday he doubled down, adding: 'If our troops didn't go into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now.' More from Rolling Stone 'L.A. Was Not on Fire': Angelenos Speak on Trump's ICE Raids and 'Escalation' Judge Orders Trump to Return National Guard Control to Newsom Trump 'Doesn't Speak With Precision,' Justice Department Tells Judge Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
Richard Grenell has talked with Trump as he weighs running for California governor
Richard Grenell, the longtime Trump ally and special presidential envoy, spoke with President Donald Trump this week about potentially running for governor of California. Grenell, who also serves as the interim executive director of the Kennedy Center, said in an interview on 'The Conversation' with Dasha Burns that he would 'have to take a look' at vying for the top job in California if former Vice President Kamala Harris launches a bid of her own. 'I want to see if Kamala runs. If Kamala runs, I think there's a whole bunch of Republicans who are going to have to take a look at it, not just me,' Grenell said in the interview, which was taped Thursday and scheduled to air in full on Sunday. 'If she runs, it is going to make me have to take a look at it. Right now, I'm not running for governor.' Grenell also said he had spoke this week with Trump about a run, but declined to share details about the conversation. Harris is expected to decide on whether to announce a run by the end of the summer. Grenell, who has a home in the Los Angeles area, traveled with Trump earlier this year to survey wildfire damage. Trump has been sharply critical of Gov. Gavin Newsom's response to the January wildfires and his handling of anti-immigration protests over the past week. Trump has sent in hundreds of additional military personnel to Los Angeles, heightening tension between protesters and law enforcement. The president also called in the National Guard to Los Angeles against Newsom's wishes, sparking a high-stakes legal battle. Grenell told POLITICO he believes the Trump administration has more credibility than Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass — even with Democrats. 'I would say that there is zero confidence in Karen Bass and Gavin Newsom right now from Democrats,' he said. 'When Donald Trump decided to send in law enforcement and send in the National Guard and send in the military, there are a lot of Democrats in California who said, 'Thank God,' because Karen Bass isn't cut out to be a leader.' Grenell previously considered a run for governor in California ahead of the 2021 vote to recall Newsom, which ultimately did not pass. Grenell also weighed in on Trump's visit to the Kennedy Center this week to take in a performance of 'Les Misérables,' arguing that despite the mixed reaction Trump received, the Kennedy Center is now 'much more tolerant.' 'I think we want people here who sit next to each other, who voted for somebody completely different for president,' Grenell said in the interview, which was taped at the Kennedy Center. 'You could have somebody sitting next to a Trump supporter who also voted, somebody who voted, for, you know, Bernie Sanders. No one gets vocal and no one gets into an argument because we're watching Les Mis. You know, that's the whole idea of tolerance.'
