Appeals court temporarily allows Trump to keep National Guard in LA - BBC

Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Order to Return National Guard to California

A legal tug-of-war continues over the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, as an appeals court has temporarily stayed a federal judge's order directing the Trump administration to return control of California's National Guard troops to the state.

The initial order, issued by Judge Charles Breyer, argued that then-President Trump had not followed proper legal procedures when deploying the troops. This decision has now been put on hold, pending further hearings.

Here's a breakdown of the situation:

• The Original Ruling: Judge Breyer stated that Trump's deployment of the National Guard violated congressional law, ordering the return of control to Governor Gavin Newsom.
• Swift Appeal: The Trump administration immediately appealed the ruling, arguing for federal control in the interest of restoring order and protecting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
• Governor Newsom's Stance: Newsom strongly opposed the deployment, calling it an "unnecessary provocation" and asserting that the military belongs on the battlefield, not city streets.
• Appeals Court Intervention: An appeals court has now temporarily blocked Judge Breyer's order, allowing the National Guard to remain in Los Angeles while the legal battle continues. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

The core of the dispute revolves around whether then-President Trump followed the law in deploying the National Guard. Judge Breyer emphasized the importance of constitutional limits on presidential power, drawing a stark contrast between a constitutional government and a monarchy. "We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he stated.

The Trump administration argued that Governor Newsom's consent wasn't required, citing the President's authority as commander-in-chief. However, Judge Breyer countered, clarifying that the President's command over the National Guard has limitations.

Key figures involved:

• Judge Charles Breyer: The federal judge who initially ruled against the Trump administration's deployment.
• Governor Gavin Newsom: The Governor of California, who opposed the deployment from the outset.
• Attorney Brett Shumate: Justice Department attorney, who argued that Newsom did not need to be consulted.

The Trump administration justified its actions by invoking a law that permits the President to federalize the National Guard in cases of "rebellion." However, California argued that the protests in Los Angeles, while disruptive, did not meet the threshold for such intervention. The state's lawsuit emphasized that the protests, despite over 300 arrests and freeway closures, did not rise to the level of a "rebellion or an insurrection."

The deployment involved a significant number of troops, with then-President Trump ordering a total of **4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines** to assist in quelling the unrest. Some of these troops were even authorized to detain individuals until police could arrest them.

This situation is particularly noteworthy as it marks a rare instance of a president deploying the National Guard without a governor's consent. Such actions were more common during the civil rights era, whereas typically, governors activate troops for natural disasters and other emergencies, subsequently seeking federal assistance.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth initially declined to comment on whether he would comply with Judge Breyer's order, emphasizing that local judges should not dictate foreign or national security policy. He did, however, state that he would abide by a Supreme Court ruling.

The appeals court's temporary stay allows the National Guard to remain in Los Angeles, but the underlying legal questions regarding the scope of presidential power and the appropriate use of the National Guard in domestic affairs remain unresolved. This case underscores the delicate balance between federal authority and states' rights, and its outcome could have significant implications for future deployments of the National Guard.

The coming hearing promises to be a crucial juncture in this complex legal battle, one that will likely have far-reaching consequences for the relationship between the federal government and individual states. The debate surrounding the National Guard deployment highlights the ongoing tension between national security concerns and the preservation of constitutional principles, reminding us of the importance of a robust and independent judiciary in safeguarding our democratic values.

Tags: Trump,National Guard,California,Gavin Newsom,Immigration,LA protests,Court,Federal judge,Deployment,Illegal

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd62d8jp046o