Trump's case for sending troops to help ICE involves precedent from Fugitive Slave Act
On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit.
"A lot rides on what happens this weekend," said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.
By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday.
Read more: Los Angeles braces for weekend of 'No Kings' protests
The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to "rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States."
But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California's troops and deployed them against protesters.
"His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," Breyer wrote.
While ICE "was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have," it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military's help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.
"The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," the judge wrote.
The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer's ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A.
The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction.
The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states' rights.
The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace.
Read more: Fears of ICE raids upend life in L.A. County, from schools to Home Depot parking lots
But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson's move than it does with President Millard Fillmore's actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north.
Trump's arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the "take care" clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military's repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War.
"Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act," the professor said.
Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called "unitary executive theory," a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch.
"It's not a coincidence that we're seeing immigration be the flash point," said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. "Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority."
Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it's clear Trump and his advisers have a "vision of how ICE can be emboldened."
"He's putting that on steroids," Chen said. "He's folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing."
Some experts point out that Judge Breyer's order is limited only to California, which means that until it's fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere.
"The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice.
"President Trump's memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it's appropriate … wherever protests are occurring," Goitein said. "He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force."
Experts said Breyer's ruling set a high bar for what may be considered "rebellion" under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A.
"It's hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government," Goitein said.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn't budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work.
Read more: L.A. law enforcement leaders walk tightrope amid immigration crackdown
"The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens," the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. "Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect."
Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system.
"It's a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn't matter," Chen said. "I don't know that [Trump] particularly cares that he's doing something illegal."
Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

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

12 minutes ago
Man accused of beheading father and posting video of his severed head to stand trial
DOYLESTOWN, Pa. -- A Pennsylvania man accused of killing his father and posting video of his severed head online — and calling for others to help him try to overthrow the U.S. government — is set to stand trial Monday in the Philadelphia suburbs. Justin D. Mohn, 33, faces charges of murder, abuse of a corpse, terrorism related crimes and other offenses for the 2024 killing of Michael F. Mohn at the Levittown home where they lived with the defendant's mother. She found her husband's body in a bathroom. Prosecutors have said Justin Mohn shot his father with a newly purchased pistol, then decapitated him with a kitchen knife and machete. The 14-minute YouTube video was live for several hours before it was removed. Mohn was armed with a handgun when arrested later that day after allegedly climbing a 20-foot (6-meter) fence at Fort Indiantown Gap, the state's National Guard headquarters. He had hoped to get the soldiers to 'mobilize the Pennsylvania National Guard to raise arms against the federal government,' Bucks County District Attorney Jennifer Schorn said at a news conference last year. Mohn had a USB device containing photos of federal buildings and apparent instructions for making explosives when arrested, authorities have said. He also had expressed violent anti-government rhetoric in writings he published online, and the YouTube video included rants about the government, immigration and the border, fiscal policy, urban crime and the war in Ukraine. Mohn's defense attorney, Steven M. Jones, said last week he did not anticipate the case being resolved with a plea deal. Michael Mohn, who was 68, had been an engineer with the geoenvironmental section of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In the video, Justin Mohn described his father as a 20-year federal employee and called him a traitor. During a competency hearing last year, a defense expert said Mohn wrote a letter to Russia's ambassador to the United States seeking a deal to give Mohn refuge and apologizing to President Vladimir Putin for claiming to be the czar of Russia.


Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia and Ukraine trade drone strikes as Kyiv signs deals to boost drone production
Russian air defenses shot down 120 Ukrainian drones during the nighttime attacks, and 39 more before 2 p.m. Moscow time (7 a.m. EST) Sunday, Russia's Defense Ministry said. It did not clarify how many had hit targets or how many had been launched in total. Advertisement Early Sunday, Ukrainian drones injured two civilians in Russia's Belgorod region near the border, its Gov. Vyacheslav Gladkov said. The Ukrainian attacks came just days after Russia pummelled Kyiv with waves of drones and missiles overnight into Friday, in what Ukrainian officials called the largest such strike since Moscow's all-out invasion. The seven-hour onslaught killed at least two civilians, wounded dozens more, and caused widespread damage, Ukraine said, while Moscow In total, Russia launched 550 drones and missiles across Ukraine that night, according to the country's air force. The barrages have coincided with a concerted Russian effort to break through parts of the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, where Ukrainian troops are under severe pressure. Advertisement Large-scale Russian drone strikes Sunday injured three civilians in Kyiv and at least two in Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city in the northeast, officials said. A Russian attack involving Shahed drones also targeted port infrastructure in Mykolaiv in central Ukraine, according to local Governor Vitaliy Kim. He reported that warehouses and the port's power grid were damaged, but there were no casualties. Hours later, Russia launched a glide bomb and a drone at the front-line town of Kostyantynivka in eastern Ukraine, killing four civilians and injuring a fifth, the prosecutor's office said. The drone struck a car in which a married couple were travelling, killing the 39-year-old woman and 40-year-old man on the spot, it said. Zelensky said Saturday that Ukraine had inked deals with European allies and a leading US defense company to step up drone production, ensuring Kyiv receives 'hundreds of thousands' more this year. Zelensky did not name the US business in his nightly video address to Ukrainians, but said Ukraine and Denmark have also agreed to co-produce drones and other weapons on Danish soil. His remarks came days after the US Ukraine has previously used homemade drones to hit high-value military targets deep inside Russia, demonstrating its capabilities and denting Moscow's confidence. Last month, Advertisement Outmanned and outgunned, Ukraine's army has also turned to drones to compensate for its troop shortage and shore up its defenses. While Russia has Friday, Zelensky said he had a 'very important and productive' phone call that day with President Trump, discussing possible joint drone production alongside Trump said his phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday left him 'very disappointed,' adding he did not think Putin was serious about ending the fighting.

17 minutes ago
Trump admin's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
BOSTON -- A federal bench trial begins Monday over a lawsuit that challenges a Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, would be one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 'The policy's effects have been swift. Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence," the plaintiffs wrote in their pretrial brief. 'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.' Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies. Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities. Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war. Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.' 'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.' They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically." But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. "Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it," plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'