Latest news with #U.S.CodeonArmedForces
American Military News
a day ago
- Politics
- American Military News
National Guard troops will stay under Trump's control, for now, under 9th Circuit order
In a late-night order Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paused a court order that would have required President Donald Trump to return control of the thousands of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to Gov. Gavin Newsom. The 9th Circuit's emergency stay came hours after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled that Trump broke the law when he mobilized thousands of Guard members amid protests over immigration raids, and must return the troops to state control by noon Friday. A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit, including two judges appointed by Trump and one by President Joe Biden, scheduled a Tuesday hearing in the case, meaning the National Guard will remain federalized through the weekend. In a 36-page U.S. District court decision, Breyer wrote that Trump's actions 'were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer added that he was 'troubled by the implication' inherent in the Trump administration's argument that 'protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.' Newsom, who filed the lawsuit along with the state of California, called the ruling 'a win for all Americans.' 'Today was really about the test of democracy, and today we passed the test,' Newsom told reporters in a building that houses the California Supreme Court in San Francisco. The ruling, California Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters, is 'a critical early indication that upon quick review of the facts of our case, the court sees the merits of our argument.' 'We aren't in the throes of a rebellion,' Bonta said. 'We are not under threat of an invasion. Nothing is preventing the federal government from enforcing federal law. The situation in Los Angeles last weekend didn't warrant the deployment of military troops, and their arrival only inflamed the situation.' The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal in the case late Thursday. During the hearing with Breyer, the judge seemed skeptical of the Justice Department's argument that courts could not question the president's judgment on key legal issues, including whether the protests and unrest in Los Angeles constituted either 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,' Breyer said. 'That's the difference between the president and King George.' Trump and the White House have argued that the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces, which gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' Breyer wrote. There were instances of violence, he said, but the Trump administration did not identify 'a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.' 'The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue — the immigration raids,' Breyer wrote. Title 10 also requires that orders from the president 'be issued through the governors of the States.' As governor, Newsom is the commander in chief of the California National Guard. Last Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo to the head of the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members, who then sent the memo to Newsom's office, the state's complaint said. Neither Newsom nor his office consented to the mobilization, the lawsuit said. Newsom wrote to Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to rescind the troop deployment. The letter said the mobilization was 'a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required.' 'I'm trying to figure out how something is 'through' somebody, if in fact you didn't send it to him,' Breyer asked. 'As long as he gets a copy of it at some point, it's going through?' Breyer was less willing, however, to engage in the legality of Trump's deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles. Attorneys for California noted that 140 Marines were scheduled to relieve and replace Guardsmen over the next 24 hours. Protests emerged across Los Angeles on Friday in response to a series of flash raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across the county. A handful of agitators among the protesters committed violence and vandalism, prompting Trump to quickly deploy the California National Guard to respond. He added active-duty Marines to the operation Monday. Protests, and some sporadic violent rioting, have continued since the deployments. Trump has said that the mobilization was necessary to 'deal with the violent, instigated riots,' and that without the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.' Breyer said that the Trump administration had identified 'some stray violent incidents relating to the protests,' and from there, he said, 'boldly claim that state and local officials were 'unable to bring rioters under control.'' 'It is not the federal government's place in our constitutional system to take over a state's police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws,' Breyer wrote. The attorneys general from 18 other states, as well as Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto, supported California's position in the case. ___ © 2025 Los Angeles Times. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do on the ground. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. "A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them," Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. "That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable." California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about "the scope of the Marines' mission and duties." Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to "restore order" and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, "did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment." The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States," but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, "Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries. "It was heading in the wrong direction," Trump said Monday. "It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess." On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California's senators push Pentagon for answers on deployment of hundreds of Marines to L.A.
California's two U.S. Senators pushed top military officials Tuesday for more information about how hundreds of U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles over the objections of local leaders and what the active-duty military will do in Los Angeles. In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla asked the Pentagon to explain the legal basis for deploying 700 active-duty Marines amid ongoing protests and unrest over immigration raids across Southern California. 'A decision to deploy active-duty military personnel within the United States should only be undertaken during the most extreme circumstances, and these are not them,' Schiff and Padilla wrote in the letter. 'That this deployment was made over the objections of state authorities is all the more unjustifiable.' California is challenging the legality of the militarization, arguing in a lawsuit filed Monday that the deployment of both the National Guard and the Marines violated the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the limits of federal power. Schiff and Padilla asked Hegseth to clarify the mission the Marines will be following during their deployment, as well as what training the troops have received for crowd control, use of force and de-escalation. The senators also asked whether the Defense Department received any requests from the White House or the Department of Homeland Security about 'the scope of the Marines' mission and duties.' Hegseth mobilized the Marines Monday from a base in Twentynine Palms. Convoys were seen heading east on the 10 Freeway toward Los Angeles on Monday evening. Schiff and Padilla said that Congress received a notification from the U.S. Northern Command on Monday about the mobilization that said the Marines had been deployed to 'restore order' and support the roughly 4,000 members of the state National Guard who had been called into service Saturday and Monday. The notification, the senators said, 'did not provide critical information to understand the legal authority, mission, or rules of engagement for Marines involved in this domestic deployment.' The California National Guard was first mobilized Saturday night over Newsom's objection. The last time a president sent the National Guard into a state without a request from the governor was six decades ago, when President Lyndon B. Johnson mobilized troops in Alabama to defend civil rights demonstrators and enforce a federal court order in 1965. Trump and the White House have said the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces. The statute gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States,' but also states that the Guard must be called up through an order from the state's governor. Trump has said that without the mobilization of the military, 'Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.' Days of protests have included some violent clashes with police and some vandalism and burglaries, including a spree of looting in downtown Los Angeles on Monday night. 'It was heading in the wrong direction,' Trump said Monday. 'It's now heading in the right direction. And we hope to have the support of Gavin, because Gavin is the big beneficiary as we straighten out his problems. I mean, his state is a mess.' On Tuesday morning, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said city officials had not been told what the military would do, given that the National Guard is already in place outside of federal buildings. 'This is just absolutely unnecessary,' Bass said. 'People have asked me, 'What are the Marines going to do when they get here?' That's a good question. I have no idea.' On Tuesday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sought a restraining order to block the deployment.
