
California hopes law from bloody era of U.S. history can rein in Trump's use of troops
California's fight to rein in President Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles hinges on a 19th century law with a a blood-soaked origin and a name that seems pulled from a Spaghetti Western.
In a pivotal ruling this week, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered the federal government to hand over evidence to state authorities seeking to prove that the actions of troops in Southern California violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws.
'How President Trump has used and is using the federalized National Guard and the Marines since deploying them at the beginning of June is plainly relevant to the Posse Comitatus Act,' Breyer wrote Wednesday in his order authorizing 'limited expedited discovery.'
The Trump administration objected to the move and has already once gotten a sweeping Breyer ruling that would've limited White House authority over the troops overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This time, the Northern District of California judge made clear he would 'only allow discovery as to the Posse Comitatus Act' — signaling what could be the state's last stand battle to prevent Marines and National Guard forces from participating in immigration enforcement.
The Posse Comitatus Act dates back to the aftermath of the Civil War when the American government faced violent resistance to its efforts to rebuild Southern state governments and enforce federal law following the abolition of slavery.
The text of the law itself is slight, its relevant section barely more than 60 words. Yet when it was enacted, it served as the legal epitaph to Reconstruction — and a preface to Jim Crow.
'It has these very ignoble beginnings,' said Mark P. Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University and one of the country's foremost experts on the statute.
Before the Civil War, the U.S. military was kept small, in part to avoid the kinds of abuses American colonists suffered under the British.
Authorities back then could marshal a crew of civilians, called a posse comitatus, to assist them, as sometimes happened in California during the Gold Rush. States also had militias that could be called up by the president to pad out the army in wartime.
But law enforcement by the U.S. military was rare and deeply unpopular. Historians have said the use of soldiers to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act — which saw escaped slaves hunted down and returned to the South — helped spark the Civil War.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has used constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act to justify using troops to round up immigrants. Experts said leaders from the antebellum South demanded similar enforcement of the law.
'The South was all for posse comitatus when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act,' said Josh Dubbert, a historian at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Library in Ohio.
But by the time Congress sent federal troops to begin Reconstruction in earnest in 1867, the landscape was very different.
After white rioters razed Black neighborhoods in Memphis and mobs of ex-Confederate soldiers massacred Black demonstrators in New Orleans in the spring of 1866, 'most of the South [was] turned into military districts,' said Jacob Calhoun, a professor of American history at Wabash College and an expert on Reconstruction.
'Most scholars, let alone the American public, do not understand the scale of racial violence during Reconstruction,' Calhoun said. 'They only send these troops in after unimaginable levels of violence.'
At the polls, Black voters were met by white gangs seeking to prevent them from casting ballots.
'For most of American history, the idea of an American army intervening in elections is a nightmare,' Calhoun said. '[Posse Comitatus] is reemphasizing this longstanding belief but for more nefarious purposes.'
The Posse Comitatus language was tucked into an appropriations bill by Southern Democrats after their party won control of Congress in the election of 1876 — 'possibly the most violent election in American history,' Calhoun said.
Historians say white lawmakers in the post-war South sought to enshrine their ability to keep Black men from voting by barring federal forces from bolstering the local militias that protected them.
'Once they're in control of Congress, they want to cut the appropriations for the army,' Dubbert said. 'They attach this amendment to [their appropriations bill] which is the Posse Comitatus Act.'
The bill won support from some Republicans, who resented the use of federalized troops to put down the Railroad Strike of 1877 — the first national labor strike in the U.S.
'It is a moment in which white Northern congressmen surrender the South back to ex-Confederates,' Calhoun said. 'With the Posse Comitatus Act, racial violence becomes the norm.'
Yet the statute itself largely vanished from memory, little used for most of the next century.
'The Posse Comitatus Act was forgotten for about 75 years, from after Reconstruction to basically the 1950s, when a defense lawyer made a challenge to a piece of evidence that the Army had obtained,' Nevitt said. 'The case law is [all] after World War II.'
Those cases have largely turned on troops who arrest, search, seize or detain civilians — 'the normal thing the LAPD does on a daily basis,' Nevitt said. The courts have stood by the bedrock principle that military personnel should not be used to enforce the law against civilians, he said, except in times of rebellion or other extreme scenarios.
'Our nation was forged in large part because the British military was violating the civil rights of colonists in New England,' Nevitt said. 'I really can't think of a more important question than the military's ability to use force against Americans.'
Yet, the law is full of loopholes, scholars said — notably in relation to use of the National Guard.
Department of Justice has argued Posse Comitatus does not apply to the military's current actions in Southern California — and even if it did, the soldiers deployed there haven't violated the law. It also claimed the 9th Circuit decision endorsing Trump's authority to call up troops rendered the Posse Comitatus issue moot.
Some experts feel California's case is strong.
'You literally have military roaming the streets of Los Angeles with civilian law enforcement,' said Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, 'That's exactly what the [act] is designed to prevent.'
But Nevitt was more doubtful. Even if Breyer ultimately rules that Trump's troops are violating the law and grants the injunction California is seeking, the 9th Circuit will almost certainly strike it down, he said.
'It's going to be an uphill battle,' the attorney said. 'And if they find a way to get to the Supreme Court, I see the Supreme Court siding with Trump as well.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
Trump's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill' inches closer to vote
The Senate is working through the weekend as many Republican leaders try to pass President Trump's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill".


Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa Race
Christina Bohannan, an Iowa Democrat making her third go at the battleground congressional seat held by GOP Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, told Newsweek in an interview that tariffs have emerged as a major issue for voters in the district. Bohannan came close to flipping Iowa's 1st Congressional District last year—losing by only 799 votes despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than eight percentage points against then Vice President Kamala Harris. The Iowa Democrat also ran in 2022. Now, Bohannan is making her third go at the district in the 2026 midterms, when Democrats are hoping a 2018-style blue wave will carry them to victory in key races across the country. Democrats will need to win seats like this to retake control of the House of Representatives next November. Trump's tariffs are likely to loom over key races next year, but the issue could be particularly important in the Hawkeye State. Trump says tariffs are necessary to bring back jobs to the U.S. and close the trade deficit. But exports of agricultural goods are a lifeline for farmers in states like Iowa. On Thursday, the president said he signed a trade deal with China, but the full impact of how that deal may affect farmers remained unclear. Bohannan emphasized tariffs as a key challenge facing Iowa in an interview with Newsweek, in which she discussed her campaign. Bohannan said she views tariffs as a "significant issue" facing Iowa. "I've already talked to some farmers who are very worried about the effect of tariffs and the trade war with China," she said. "What we see is that China in the past has bought a lot of farm products from Iowa, and now China is seeking out other trading partners besides Iowa and besides the U.S., like Brazil for example." The U.S. has landed in a trade war with China, which faced the highest tariffs under Trump's plan. This has affected farmers in the state, as China is the largest importer of soybeans from the U.S., importing more than $12 billion worth of the agricultural product in 2024. China has sought new trading partners, a move that could create economic uncertainty and losses for soybean farmers in states like Iowa. Once the trade relationships with Iowa farmers have been "severed," they will be hard to restore, Bohannan warned. Many residents in the district are also "already struggling to get by" due to the high cost-of-living, she said. Legislation supported by Republicans, such as Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" will only make those challenges worse, Bohannan said. Miller-Meeks told KHQA, a news station based in Quincy, Illinois, that Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" will address concerns, adding that tariffs are used as a "negotiating tactic," and that manufacturers and small business owners have for years raised concerns about China's "egregious trade practices." A poll that was published this week and released by the House Majority PAC showed Bohannan with an early lead over Miller-Meeks in the midterms, with 43 percent of voters supporting the Democrat and 39 percent backing the Republican. The poll surveyed 555 voters in the district from June 18-19, Politico reported. Bohannan outperformed Harris by eight points in Iowa's 1st District—which includes areas like Davenport and Des Moines suburbs, as well as large swaths of rural areas in southeast Iowa. The issue of winning back rural voters has been an existential question for the Democratic Party as they try to stop bleeding in Midwest and Great Lake states where their margins have diminished over the past decade. Iowa, which backed former President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but has also backed Trump, is emblematic of that challenge. Bohannan overperformed last year by cutting into GOP margins in some of the rural counties in the district. She told Newsweek that Democrats can win back rural voters by getting out and talk to them "where they are." "That sounds simple, but the fact is that a lot of times, candidates don't take the time to go out to rural areas and small communities to connect with voters," she said. "They go to the bigger cities and do big events, but they don't take the time to really go to these communities and talk to people and listen to people." She attributed those efforts to her performance in 2024. "I actually spent time in these areas. I met with people to talk about what was happening in their public schools. What was happening with childcare and with water quality, and elder care in their communities," she said. "People got to know me and got to trust me. They understand that I come from a very small rural community just like theirs. My family had to make very hard decisions about filling prescriptions after my dad got sick and lost his insurance or putting food on the table." National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokeswoman Emily Tuttle, in a statement after Bohannan announced her campaign: "When will Christina learn? Iowans have rejected her twice already, and now she has to run to the left to beat radical Bob Kraus and Bernie-bro Travis Terrell in the primary. There's no doubt whoever comes out of this liberal rat race will be sent packing when Iowans re-elect America First fighter Mariannette Miller-Meeks next fall." Christina Bohannan told Newsweek: "One thing that's so interesting about Iowans is that we are fair minded, and we are willing to give people a chance regardless of political party if we believe that you're authentic, and you're willing to put Iowa first. So, in 2024, 33,000 people who voted for Donald Trump in this district also voted for me. I won two counties here that Trump won handily. What we see here is that Iowans really want somebody who is going to put Iowa first." The race is expected to be one of the most competitive of the 2026 midterms. Both the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, two of the leading election forecasters, classify the race as a pure toss-up. Bohannan and Miller-Meeks are also set to face off against other candidates in primaries scheduled to be held on June 2, 2026. The general election is set for November 3, 2026. Related Articles Republicans' Chances of Flipping New Hampshire's Democratic Senate SeatClarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Reassess Landmark Voting LawFull List of Democrats Voting to Condemn Los Angeles Anti-Trump RiotsNew 2028 Democratic Front-Runner Surges Ahead of Kamala Harris-Poll 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.


Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'
On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal. Related Articles Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security AdministrationHarvard Finds International Student Lifeline Amid Trump Visa Showdown 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.