Judge blocks Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles
A federal judge on Thursday ruled President Trump must return control of California's National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) by Friday afternoon, prompting a lightning-fast appeal that began within minutes.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton, temporarily blocked the president from deploying thousands of guardsmen to Los Angeles, where protests over his immigration agenda have sometimes turned violent.
But the judge paused his order until Friday at noon PDT, giving the administration a quick window to try to fast-track an emergency appeal.
'At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,' wrote Breyer, who is also the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. 'He did not.
'His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,' the judge continued. 'He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.'
The decision hands a major victory, at least for now, to Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in their quest to invalidate Trump's deployment as illegal and an unconstitutional intrusion into state authority.
The judge left for another day, however, whether Trump needed Newsom's consent.
Newsom did not ask the judge to completely block Trump's deployment at this stage, instead urging him to immediately prevent the troops from patrolling the streets of Los Angeles.
Breyer refused Newsom's Tuesday request to intervene in mere hours, instead providing the Trump administration a chance to defend themselves at a Thursday hearing before ruling.
At the hearing, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that Trump was not required to seek approval from Newsom in mobilizing the guard, calling the governor 'merely a conduit.'
The president does not have to call up a governor and 'invite them to Camp David' for a negotiation summit to call in the National Guard in their state, he said.
'There is one commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and when the president makes a decision, the states are subservient to the president's decision,' Shumate said.
Newsom and Bonta sued Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense over the deployment of several thousand National Guard troops to Los Angeles, where protests over the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement efforts have sometimes turned violent.
During a congressional hearing Thursday, Hegseth refused to commit to following court orders regarding the deployment after a Democratic congressman pressed him on the matter.
He said that the U.S. should not have 'local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country.'
The California officials say the deployment was unlawful. Nicholas Green, a lawyer for the state, said that the government's argument meant the president 'by fiat' could federalize the National Guard and deploy it in the streets of any civilian city in the nation. He called it an 'expansive, dangerous conception' of federal executive power.
'I view the constitution a little differently than my colleagues do,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
7 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Iranian Missiles Hit Multiple Sites in Tel Aviv, Injuring at Least 22
The Abqaiq oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia, after it was damaged in an attack from Iran in 2019. In September 2019, a barrage of drones and cruise missiles slammed into two Saudi oil facilities near the Persian Gulf, including one of the largest in the world, igniting small fires that briefly interrupted production. The projectiles were later traced to Iran, and despite its stringent denials, the desire to avoid a repeat of the incident prompted a new and sustained effort by Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf States to use détente and diplomacy toward the Islamic Republic to de-escalate regional tensions. That effort is being put to the test as never before on Friday amid waves of Israeli attacks on Iran aimed at destroying key facilities and decapitating the military and civilian leadership running its nuclear programs. 'I think the tension is palpable and everybody is concerned about possible blowback,' said Firas Maksad, the managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk analysis organization. 'This is a moment of great uncertainty throughout the region. It is the big war the region has been both fearing and anticipating for years.' The Gulf Arab states, and indeed much of the Arab world, were quick to issue robust condemnations of the Israeli attacks like this one from Riyadh: 'The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its strong condemnation and denunciation of the blatant Israeli aggression against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran, which undermine its sovereignty and security and constitute a clear violation of international laws and norms.' The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, and several others from the region called their Iranian counterpart to repeat the condemnation. With the Arab world already inflamed by the Gaza conflict, a related war in Lebanon, a long-running civil war in Yemen and Syria barely staggering to its feet after 14 years of violence and civil war, there was also frustration that attempts at de-escalation had failed. It was tensions over Yemen that had prompted the 2019 attack against Saudi Arabia. 'We are frustrated and fatigued,' said Bader al-Saif, a professor of history at Kuwait University. 'The region has been doing its best for the past few years to come to terms with everyone, including Israel,' he added. 'But Israel is trying to reset the region to their own tune and they are trying to do this violently.' The United States was considered part of the problem. Although President Trump kept a certain distance from the prospect of conflict between the Middle East's two most powerful militaries, and had been trying to negotiate a new deal to defuse Iran's nuclear program, he had not blocked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel from launching the attack. 'After the triumphant Trump visit to the Gulf and serious mediation efforts, there will also be some frustration that Trump has proved unwilling or unable to restrain Netanyahu,' said Dr. Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, a London-based research institute. Part of the equation is that the region depends heavily on American military power for its defense, with U.S. forces deployed at air bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia as well as a major naval base on Bahrain, along with troops scattered across Iraq and northeastern Syria. While the Gulf bases were established in recent decades not least as a deterrent for Iran, there was fear that Tehran might miscalculate by targeting them, widening the conflict by drawing in the United States. Gulf countries have all committed billions of dollars to major, futuristic development projects meant to wean their economies off oil, so a major war would also jeopardize those plans. The attacks by Israel against Iran immediately threatened the region's economy, with airlines canceling countless flights for the foreseeable future. Israel, Iran, Iraq and Jordan all closed their airspace. Countries like Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt that depend heavily on tourist dollars had been hoping for a revival. Jordan said it was shooting down Iranian projectiles that violated its airspace, but underscored that it was protecting itself and not joining the war. Syria was considered completely out of this conflict. Of course, Arab states had been worried about Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons as well, even if there was some sense that Israel had exaggerated the threat. Crippling the Iranian nuclear program would provoke some satisfaction, analysts said, but it seemed an enormous gamble. 'If Israel and or the United States can finish off the threat to the Gulf countries via military means, I don't think that Arab leaders will be shedding tears,' Mr. Maksad said. 'The great concern is a job half-done that then leaves them wide open to retaliation and undermines their national development projects in the process.' Two rounds of tit-for-tat attacks between Israel and Iran last year ended fairly quickly, but there was anxiety that this new one could escalate. That increased the potential for unforeseen consequences. 'For the Iranians, this will require a different kind of response, more sustained and more hurtful,' said Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington. For the moment Iran's beleaguered proxy forces, including Hezbollah, did not react beyond verbal condemnations. Worst-case scenarios include the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point for Persian Gulf oil exports. Since Iran depends on that flow as well, even as it is limited at the moment due to sanctions, that is seen as a possible last desperate step. 'If this continues, we are going into unchartered terrain,' Dr. al-Saif said. Ismaeel Naar contributed reporting.
Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
New Hampshire jury acquits consultant behind AI robocalls mimicking Biden on all charges
A political consultant who sent artificial intelligence-generated robocalls mimicking former President Joe Biden to New Hampshire Democrats last year was acquitted Friday of voter suppression and impersonating a candidate. Steven Kramer, 56, of New Orleans, admitted orchestrating a message sent to thousands of voters two days before the state's Jan. 23, 2024, presidential primary. Recipients heard an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his catchphrase 'What a bunch of malarkey' and, as prosecutors alleged, suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November.
Politico
21 minutes ago
- Politico
Israel may be shattering Trump's energy price pledge
Israel's stunning attacks on Iran's nuclear program and military leadership are embroiling the Middle East in another deadly war — and could imperil President Donald Trump's pledge to slash oil prices for American consumers. The bombings that began Thursday and continued into Friday targeted Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities and killed several of the country's top military leaders and scientists. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed revenge. And meanwhile, the strikes sent shock waves through energy markets. Oil is still cheaper than it was a year ago. But Trump faces the prospect of the same economic nightmare that helped unravel Joe Biden's presidency, Ben Lefebvre reports. The world benchmark oil price was around $74 a barrel late this afternoon in Washington, up $8 since early Wednesday. Energy analysts said a dire escalation of the crisis, such as an attack on the Strait of Hormuz, could send the price to $100 a barrel. No matter how the fighting unfolds, Ben writes, gasoline prices are likely to increase just as voters' energy bills are likely to go up during the summer months. That's at the very least politically inconvenient for a president who had promised to bring down the 'price of everything,' including fuel for Americans' cars. What comes next: U.S. presidents have a poor track record when it comes to influencing global oil markets, especially during times of war. And Trump may have even fewer tools at his disposal than Biden did to blunt the impact of rising prices. For one thing, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is smaller than it was four years ago, before the Biden administration released nearly half its oil into the market to blunt rising prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Plus the emergency oil stash needs more than $100 million in infrastructure repairs, Shelby Webb reports. If Iran's retaliation against Israel includes disrupting oil flows or attacking regional energy infrastructure, 'we could see a significant supply shock with oil prices rising sharply,' Jorge León, an analyst with Rystad Energy, said in a statement. Some analysts urged caution, though. Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James said the historical track record between Israel and Iran suggests both sides want to avoid all-out war. The two countries exchanged missile strikes twice last year, but avoided escalation. 'Assuming that restraint similarly prevails this time, oil prices should subside quickly, which would limit the impact on the global economy,' Molchanov said in a statement. But Israel may have some decidedly unrestrained goals for this sustained assault, such as toppling Iran's regime, POLITICO's Nahal Toosi wrote in her column this afternoon. Tehran called the attack a 'declaration of war' and said the country would respond 'decisively and proportionally.' Thank goodness it's Friday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Alex Guillén breaks down why the Environmental Protection Agency's rationale for rescinding a Biden-era climate rule for power plants may be on shaky legal ground. Spotlight Postcard from an American enclave surrounded by Canada and water:The only way to reach the Northwest Angle of Minnesota without driving through Canadian customs is via prop plane, boat or — during ice fishing season — by snowmobiling more than an hour across a massive lake. Corbin Hiar delivers this report from the fishing paradise to understand how Trump's tariffs and Canada's ire with the United States are affecting the lives of this tiny, 150-person enclave. Power Centers EPA documents contradict ZeldinEPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said his efforts this week to repeal climate and mercury rules would prevent fossil fuel industries from vanishing, writes Jean Chemnick. But EPA's own analysis that accompanied Zeldin's proposal shows that the rules he is targeting for repeal would not have changed the U.S. energy sector very much. For that reason, the agency's own analysis projected that the targeted climate rules would impose only modest costs on the electricity sector. In one case, the cost was nonexistent. Ocean treaty comes into view — minus the United Nations Oceans Conference in Nice, France, ended today with promises from world leaders to ratify a global, binding agreement to help protect the world's oceans, writes Leonie Cater. But don't count on the United States, which skipped the conference and declared the gathering 'at odds' with the Trump administration's views. The commitment paves the way for the world's very first Conference of the Parties for a High Seas Treaty next year. In Other News Cancer Alley: A Tulane scientist resigned, citing a 'gag order' on environmental justice research. Farewell: Gary England, forecaster who kept watch over Tornado Alley, died at 85. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. The White House is reviewing proposed rules from a host of federal agencies that would dictate how the government implements the National Environmental Policy Act, the nation's magna carta of environmental laws. What to watch: The world's richest nations are gathering Sunday in the Canadian Rockies for a summit that could reveal whether Trump's policies are shaking global climate efforts. The Trump administration proposed its first biofuel blending mandates on Friday, increasing volumes over the next two years to record levels but leaving open questions over exemptions from the mandates sought by small refiners. That's it for today, folks. Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!
