Latest news with #Section12406
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's National Guard lawsuit against Trump has a big problem
After President Donald Trump deployed the California National Guard into Los Angeles over the weekend against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state is fighting back. Attorney General Rob Bonta announced California is suing the administration, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to federalize the National Guard in this case and was infringing on state sovereignty. Trump's decision to send in the National Guard may be morally (and politically) problematic. The difficulty facing California's lawsuit is that federal law appears to give not just President Trump, but any president, broad authority to federalize the National Guard, whether or not a governor wants him to do so. The primary legal question is whether the Trump administration had the power to federalize the National Guard against the wishes of the state's governor. The presidential memorandum Trump issued Saturday deploying the National Guard invoked a little-used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The power that Section 12406 confers on presidents is broad but not unlimited. It gives the president the power to federalize the National Guard when there is 'a rebellion or danger of rebellion' against federal authority, or when the president cannot, using the usual mechanisms, execute federal laws. Once the National Guard arrives, however, it can only support other law enforcement officers. They can help to protect federal law enforcement officers and federal property, but they cannot, for instance, perform searches and seizures. Why such limits? Because the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances. And Section 12406 does not suspend the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act. To invoke his authority under Section 12406, Trump concluded that, '[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' California has argued that there is no such rebellion. One problem for the state's lawsuit is that there is of course no settled definition of what a rebellion is. In addition, federal judges tend to defer to presidents when it comes to questions of national security. Federal judges, who are not chosen by voters, are generally wary of second-guessing the judgment of an elected president when it comes to questions of whether or not we are in danger of a rebellion. California also argues that because Section 12406 requires that orders to federalize the National Guard be issued 'through the governors,' that means that a president cannot take this action against the wishes of the state's governor. However, the plain language of the statute does not include an explicit requirement of a governor's consent. In addition, reading such a requirement into the statute would provide any state governor with veto power over a president's decision under this federal law. That hardly seems consistent with congressional intent. Finally, California argues that Trump's actions violate the 10th Amendment, which says that all powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. But the plain terms of Section 12406 do appear to give the president the power to federalize the National Guard. The legal landscape would change significantly if the president tries to invoke his power under the Insurrection Act. If he does, the protections in the Posse Comitatus Act are suspended, and the National Guard, and other branches of the military, can act to directly enforce domestic law. We are not there yet, but if Trump takes that step, it would be a dramatic escalation of an already historic standoff between the federal government and the state. This article was originally published on
Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County. PHOTO: REUTERS Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 9 mobilised 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. What are national guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California National Guard troops and police officers stand guard as people attend a rally against federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 9. PHOTO: REUTERS California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion', no 'invasion' and no situation that prevented the enforcement of US laws in the state. Mr Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Mr Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations cast doubt on Mr Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Governor Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Governor Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word 'shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Governor Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term 'insurrection' when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: AFP The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Mr Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Mr Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in 'any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity'. The Defence Department said on June 9 that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Is Donald Trump allowed to send troops to stop LA protests? Here's what US law says
President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticises his administration's policies. Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
