LA protests: Court blocks Trump from deploying National Guard; curfew extended
A US judge has issued a temporary order preventing President Trump from deploying the California National Guard in Los Angeles. The ruling, which limits the military's operations in the city, is set to take effect on June 13 at noon Pacific Time. Additionally, the judge has directed that control of the California National Guard be returned to Governor Gavin Newsom.Earlier, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announced on Thursday that the nighttime curfew will be enforced for the third consecutive day in downtown Los Angeles to prevent property damage during violent protests against federal immigration enforcement actions.advertisementThe curfew will be in place from 8 PM to 6 AM (local time) in a one-square-mile area of downtown. Mayor Bass said this decision was made to keep the area safe after incidents of vandalism and looting were reported.
"My hope is, after continuing it for a few more days, that people will get the message that we are serious," said Bass.She also said she does not believe the restricted area needs to be expanded beyond its current size.However, the city loosened curfew restrictions for ticket holders for Thursday's show at the Mark Taper Forum. The performance of Hamlet at the theatre is scheduled to go as planned after prior shows were cancelled.Latest developments in Los Angeles anti-immigration protests:
A US judge has ruled that the California National Guard must be returned to the control of Governor Gavin Newsom. This decision comes alongside an order temporarily blocking President Donald Trump from deploying the Guard in Los Angeles, with the restrictions set to take effect on June 13 at noon (local time).
California Senator Alex Padilla was briefly detained and handcuffed during a tense moment at a news conference in Los Angeles, where federal agents removed him while Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was speaking. The incident happened amid growing protests in the city over recent immigration raids. LA Mayor Karen Bass called it "abhorrent and outrageous."
What just happened to @SenAlexPadilla is absolutely abhorrent and outrageous.
He is a sitting United States Senator.
This administration's violent attacks on our city must end.pic.twitter.com/qbh9ZPE8i9
— Mayor Karen Bass (@MayorOfLA) June 12, 2025
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem lashed out at Democratic leaders in California during a news conference in Los Angeles. She blame them for making immigration enforcement more difficult. She defended the ongoing ICE operations and warned protesters of strict action.
Protests over immigration enforcement have spread across several US states, with demonstrations reported in California, Washington, Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. These protests have also drawn crowds in major cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Antonio, Chicago, and New York City, as well as in smaller cities such as Omaha and Santa Ana.
Families across Los Angeles are living in fear as immigration enforcement actions increase across the city and surrounding areas. According to the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids have become more frequent throughout Southern California. As these operations spread beyond the city limits, uncertainty is growing among those who call LA home.
Tune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
7 hours ago
- Mint
Trump Can Keep Deploying Troops in LA for Now, Court Says
The Trump administration won a brief reprieve from a judge's order to pull back on its use of military troops in Los Angeles to deal with protests over the president's immigration raids. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco put the judge's order on hold and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday to discuss further action in the case. The move came hours after US District Judge Charles Breyer directed the federal government to return control of the California National Guard to state leaders and cease efforts to direct those troops to respond to protests while a lawsuit challenging the actions proceeds. Early Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed the ruling in a post on Truth Social, repeating his claim that if he had not deployed troops, Los Angeles 'would be burning to the ground right now.' 'We saved L.A. Thank you for the Decision!!!,' he wrote. The appeals court set a hearing for Tuesday to consider whether to continue to allow Trump to use troops in Los Angeles for longer. Written arguments from the administration and California are due before then. California officials didn't respond outside regular business hours to a request for comment. Lawyers for the state had urged the appeals panel to reject the federal government's request to pause Breyer's order, arguing that his ruling clearly identified the 'irreparable harm' the state would face if the deployment continued in LA. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have clashed for days with law enforcement, sometimes violently, while California Governor Gavin Newsom and Trump are at odds over how to restore order and who should do it. The activities spurred a dispute over the limits of Trump's executive powers after he federalized the National Guard over the objections of Newsom and other local leaders. In doing so, Trump issued a proclamation stating that the protests are a 'form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' Breyer said in his ruling that he 'is troubled' by the implication that 'protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.' Attorneys for California had asked Breyer to bar the troops from helping federal law enforcement in immigration raids, though they would be allowed to protect federal courthouses, offices and personnel. In their request for an emergency order, the state's lawyers argued that the military deployment 'creates imminent harm to state sovereignty' and 'escalates tensions.' The president has called the demonstrations 'migrant riots' and said on his Truth Social platform that his decision to call in the troops has helped address unrest in the city. Without the military presence, he said 'Los Angeles would be a crime scene like we haven't seen in years.' Explainer: Why Trump's Use of Military in US Is So Controversial The government has maintained that Trump acted legally and lawyers said in a court filing that any order from Breyer limiting the scope of Trump's authority would 'jeopardize the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and interfere with the federal government's ability to carry out operations.' Hundreds of protesters have been arrested in the Los Angeles area this week. Local law enforcement has handled nearly all of the crowd control, as protests largely are confined to a few parts of the Los Angeles area and downtown. The past two nights have been relatively quiet after Mayor Karen Bass imposed a 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew over a one-mile-square area of downtown to tamp down the protests. The case is Newsom v. Trump, 25-cv-04870, US District Court, Northern District of California . With assistance from John Gittelsohn. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
'No specific power for President over election': Federal judge blocks Trump's executive order on voting laws; says it oversteps presidential powers
A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's controversial executive order aimed at reshaping US election procedures, ruling that it likely violates the Constitution and infringes on states' authority over elections. US District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction against the March 25 directive, siding with a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general who argued that the order was an unconstitutional attempt to override state election laws. 'The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,' Judge Casper wrote in her ruling. Trump's order sought to enforce several sweeping changes to federal elections, including mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, rejecting mail-in ballots not received by Election Day, and linking federal election grants to states' compliance with the new rules. The states challenging the order said it 'usurps the States' constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.' The Biden administration, which inherited the litigation, did not support Trump's order. However, Trump and his allies have maintained the directive is necessary to secure elections, with the White House at the time defending it as 'standing up for free, fair and honest elections.' Casper said the states had shown a 'likelihood of success' in their legal challenges and acknowledged their concerns about the administrative and financial burden the order would impose. She also noted that federal registration forms already require voters to affirm their US citizenship and that noncitizen voting is already illegal under federal law. This marks the second judicial blow to Trump's order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., had earlier blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship mandate. The order was rooted in Trump's long-standing claims of voter fraud — assertions that have repeatedly been debunked by independent reviews and multiple state-led investigations. After losing the 2020 election, Trump has continued to promote baseless allegations about election integrity, including false claims about voting machines and illegal ballots. Critics argue the executive order threatens to disenfranchise voters, particularly in states like Oregon and Washington that rely heavily on mail-in voting. In a separate legal challenge, these states pointed out that the order would bar the counting of hundreds of thousands of ballots postmarked on time but received after Election Day. In Washington alone, more than 300,000 such ballots arrived late in 2024. Trump's order had found support among Republican election officials in some states, who said it could help prevent voter fraud and provide access to federal data for purging outdated voter rolls. But constitutional experts have warned that the president lacks the authority to impose such nationwide election rules — a power reserved for states, with Congress able to intervene only in federal elections. During a court hearing earlier this month, Department of Justice attorney Bridget O'Hickey argued the order aimed to create consistent standards across states and dismissed concerns about cost or feasibility as speculative. She also suggested that late-arriving ballots might be tampered with, although Judge Casper noted that such ballots already require a postmark before or on Election Day, and any received afterward with later postmarks are not counted. Friday's ruling leaves the future of Trump's order uncertain and bolsters state officials' efforts to maintain control over their own election procedures.
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Trump Finds Victories At The Supreme Court In Rush Of Emergency Cases
Washington: Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January, his administration has bombarded the U.S. Supreme Court with emergency requests seeking immediate intervention to free up his initiatives stymied by lower courts. The strategy is paying off. Once a rarely used pathway to the nation's top judicial body, its emergency docket now bulges with an unprecedented volume of requests for rapid attention by the justices in clashes over Mr Trump's far-reaching executive actions. As the Republican president tests the limits of executive power under the U.S. Constitution, Mr Trump's administration has made 19 emergency applications to the court in less than five months, with one other such application filed by lawyers for migrants held in Texas who were on the verge of deportation. The court already has acted in 13 of these cases. It has ruled in Mr Trump's favor nine times, partially in his favor once, against him twice and postponed action in one case that ultimately was declared moot. Mr Trump's wins have given him the green light to implement contentious policies while litigation challenging their legality continues in lower courts. The court, for instance, let Mr Trump revoke the temporary legal status granted for humanitarian reasons to hundreds of thousands of migrants, implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military and take actions to downsize the federal workforce, among other policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justice who Mr Trump appointed during his 2017-2021 first presidential term. Six more emergency requests by the administration remain pending at the court and one other emergency request was withdrawn. Among the requests still to be acted upon are Mr Trump's bid to broadly enforce his order to restrict birthright citizenship, to deport migrants to countries other than their own including politically unstable South Sudan and to proceed with mass federal layoffs called "reductions in force." Emergency applications to the court involving Mr Trump policies have averaged about one per week since he began his second term. His administration's applications this year match the total brought during Mr Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden's four years as president. "The Trump administration uses every legal basis at its disposal to implement the agenda the American people voted for," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told Reuters. "The Supreme Court will continue to have to step in to correct erroneous legal rulings that district court judges enter solely to block the president's policies." Strong Cases The administration has "not sought Supreme Court review in all the cases it could, and part of the story may be that the government is appealing what it thinks are strong cases for it," said Sarah Konsky, director of the University of Chicago Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic. Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who wrote a book about the court's emergency docket, said in a blog post on Thursday that the results favoring Mr Trump should not be attributed only to the court's ideological makeup. At a time when Mr Trump and his allies have verbally attacked judges who have impeded aspects of his sweeping agenda, there is a "very real possibility that at least some of the justices ... are worried about how much capital they have to expend in confrontations with President Trump," Vladeck wrote. The onslaught of emergency applications has diverted the attention of the justices as they near the end of the court's current term. June is usually their busiest month as they rush to finish writing opinions in major cases. For instance, they have yet to decide the fate of Tennessee's Republican-backed ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. Among the emergency-docket cases, the court most recently on June 6 allowed Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in his drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal data on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration systems and blocked a watchdog group from receiving records on DOGE operations. The court also has allowed Mr Trump to cut millions of dollars in teacher training grants and to fire thousands of probationary federal employees. On the other side of the ledger, the court has expressed reservations about whether the administration is treating migrants fairly, as required under the Constitution's guarantee of due process. On May 16, it said procedures used by the administration to deport migrants from a Texas detention center under Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law historically used only in wartime failed basic constitutional requirements. The justices also declined to let the administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work already performed for the government. Questions Of Transparency Mr Trump turned to the emergency docket during his first term as well. His prior administration filed 41 such applications to the court. During the 16 years prior, the presidential administrations of Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama filed just eight combined, according to Vladeck. The court has quickly decided weighty matters using the emergency docket in a way often at odds with its traditional practice of considering full case records from lower courts, receiving at least two rounds of written briefings and then holding oral arguments before rendering a detailed written ruling. It is sometimes called the "shadow docket" because cases often are acted upon without the usual level of transparency or consideration. Some recent decisions on the emergency docket have come with brief opinions explaining the court's reasoning. But typically they are issued as bare and unsigned orders offering no rationale. Konsky noted that the justices sometimes designate emergency cases for regular review with arguments and full briefing. "But in any event, the emergency docket raises complicated questions that are likely to continue to play out in the coming years," Konsky said. Among Mr Trump's emergency applications this year, oral arguments were held only in the birthright citizenship dispute. The liberal justices, often findings themselves on the losing side, have expressed dismay. Once again "this court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent in the Social Security data case. "The risk of error increases when this court decides cases -as here - with barebones briefing, no argument and scarce time for reflection," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the teacher grants case. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito defended the emergency docket in 2021, saying there is "nothing new or shadowy" about the process and that it has wrongly been portrayed as sinister.
