Latest news with #10thAmendment
Miami Herald
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Appeals court halts ruling forcing Trump to return CA Guard to Newsom's control
A federal appeals court late Thursday temporarily blocked a judge's order that required President Donald Trump to relinquish control of California's National Guard, pausing a sweeping rebuke of the administration's decision to deploy troops to Los Angeles over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court's ruling, which had found Trump's use of National Guard and Marine personnel after federal immigration raids violated both statutory limits and the 10th Amendment. The stay will remain in effect at least through a scheduled hearing next week. Hours before, Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had given the Trump administration until noon Friday to relinquish control of the Guard, a rare and sweeping judicial repudiation of the administration's unprecedented use of military personnel to support deportation operations amid immigration protests in the south state. 'The court must determine whether the president followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,' Breyer wrote in a 36-page decision granting Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order. 'He did not.' 'His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States,' Breyer added. Breyer, who expressed skepticism during oral arguments earlier in the day, concluded the Trump administration had failed to prove 'a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.' 'The definition of rebellion is unmet,' Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote. Attorneys for the White House immediately requested an emergency stay at the appellate level, which was granted by the three-judge panel. Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Eric D. Miller and Lucy H. Koh ordered the halt and set a hearing for Tuesday. Bennett and Miller were appointed by Trump during his first term; Koh was elevated to the 9th Circuit by Biden in 2022. The legal back-and-forth set the stage for a high-stakes clash over executive power and states' rights, with Newsom casting the ruling as a pivotal moment for democratic accountability. 'Today's order makes clear that (Trump) is not above or beyond constitutional constraints,' Newsom said moments after the District Court's ruling from Los Angeles, 'Constitution sets forth limits; the president is a constitutional officer. The President of the United States works under the Constitution. And so we are very gratified by this decision. ... Clearly, there's no invasion, there's no rebellion. It's absurd. And so we're gratified. Today is a big day for the Constitution of the United States, for our democracy. And I hope it's the beginning of a new day in this country where we push back against overreach.' Newsom also addressed the potential of an appellate hold. 'I'm confident in the rule of law. I'm confident in the Constitution of the United States. I'm confident in the wisdom and judgment of a very well-respected federal judge. And I'm confident, on the basis of the review of the 36 pages – absolutely it will stand,' he said. Trump thanked the panel for its decision, saying in a social media post, 'The Appeals Court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe. If I didn't send the Military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A.' Breyer's ruling on Thursday came after a heated hearing in federal court, at which lawyers for Newsom argued that the deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles during protests over immigration raids was unlawful — a claim strongly disputed by White House attorneys. The hearing was part of a lawsuit filed by Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday against Trump's move to deploy the Guard and Marines to the nation's second-largest city without the governor's approval. '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. Although Breyer said in his ruling that the deployment of the Marines to Los Angeles also was in conflict with the 10th Amendment, he did not order Trump to remove them in part because they were not in L.A. but training in Orange County. The hearing took place against a backdrop of ongoing tensions in Los Angeles, where Trump has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines, a move that legal experts said was highly unusual and based on laws that could be interpreted in different ways. Protests began on Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents swarmed a local Home Depot store, arresting day laborers, and raided businesses in the city's largely immigrant garment district. The city has been under a nightly curfew since Tuesday night, when Mayor Karen Bass said it was necessary to stop vandalism and looting. On Thursday, Alex Padilla, one of California's two U.S. Senators, was forcibly removed from a press conference given by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, forced to kneel and then lie on the ground before being handcuffed. Newsom has blamed Trump for fanning the protests and violence, saying both the immigration raids and the activation of troops were deliberately provocative in a city where a third of the residents are immigrants. On Tuesday, he filed the request for a temporary restraining order, asking the judge to immediately limit the military's activities to support roles: protecting federal property and personnel. Newsom said in a court filing on Thursday that troops had moved beyond those allowable duties to actively assist ICE agents in making arrests, in violation of a federal law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which is designed to prevent the military from being used as a domestic police force. At the hearing on Thursday, Breyer questioned the Trump administration's lawyers sharply on whether the president had followed the law when taking over control of the Guard over Newsom's objections. In particular, he asked Assistant U.S. Attorney General Brett Shumate about a clause in the law that says orders to federalize the National Guard 'shall' come through the governors of the states. He also pressed the administration on its claim that even if Trump had not adhered to conditions laid out in the law for federalizing the National Guard, the courts don't have the jurisdiction to overturn his decision because the president has the discretion to interpret those conditions in his own way. He appeared to show some sympathy to Newsom's point of view when he asked California Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Green to address the question of Trump's discretion. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said, referring to the British monarch against whom the American Revolution was fought. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes' the truth. But he questioned Green about Newsom's argument that the court had jurisdiction over what he called speculative concerns about how Trump might use the Marines, which are already under federal control. Much of the discussion at the hearing revolved around the law invoked by Trump when he activated the military in Los Angeles, which limits his power to do so unless there is an invasion, a rebellion, or the president is unable to enforce the laws of the United States. In documents submitted to the court this week, the president's lawyers argued that such conditions did exist in Los Angeles, making the deployments legal. Moreover, they argued that the federal government was following the law by limiting such military intervention to protection of federal property and personnel. But in his claim, Newsom alleges that Trump broke laws against the domestic deployment of military troops without consent from the state's governor. Newsom said he did not approve of the deployment and did not request it. He pointed to a clause in the law that says orders to deploy the National Guard by the federal government must be made through the governors of the states. Trump's lawyers argued for a different interpretation of the statute, saying it required the order to go through the governor or a representative, but not be made by the governor, court documents show. In this case, they argued, the order went through a top commander at the California National Guard, who responded to the president's directive. Breyer disagreed, saying in his ruling that California officials and 'the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life.' In his ruling, the judge harshly criticized the White House for attempting to justify the Guard deployment after the fact. Breyer warned that 'the federal executive could unilaterally exercise military force in a domestic context and then be allowed to backfill justifications for doing so' — a precedent he labeled dangerous. Ultimately, the judge found Trump's takeover of the Guard violated the 10th Amendment by undermining state sovereignty. The court said Trump lacked both legal justification and procedural authority, rejecting the idea that immigration protests amounted to a 'rebellion' and calling the deployment an illegal federal overreach. 'To put a finer point on it,' Breyer wrote, 'the federal government cannot be permitted to exceed its bounds and in doing so create the very emergency conditions that it then relies on to justify federal intervention.' In a court filing, Newsom and Bonta criticized the appellate stay as 'unnecessary and unwarranted,' citing what they called Breyer's 'extensive reasoning' and his conclusion that California faced irreparable harm without immediate relief. They also questioned the timing of Tuesday's appellate hearing, noting it falls just before Breyer's hearing the following Friday on a preliminary injunction. A White House spokesperson told the Associated Press on Friday that Trump acted within his powers and that the original injunction 'puts our brave federal officials in danger. The district court has no authority to usurp the President's authority as Commander in Chief.'
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The National Guard's deployment: Essential protection or overreach?
In a whiplash moment, a late-night order by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Thursday night allowed President Donald Trump to continue federalizing the California National Guard by pausing U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's ruling that it was unconstitutional earlier in the day. The administrative stay was greeted with immediate opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom's legal team after taking away his short-lived victory against the president, by allowing the deployment of roughly 4,000 guards on protesters in Los Angeles to continue. Trump posted on social media following the appeals court's decision, claiming that 'If it weren't for me getting the National Guard into Los Angeles, it would be burning to the ground right now!' 'Incompetent Gavin Newscum should have been THANKING me for the job we did in Los Angeles, rather than making sad excuses for the poor job he has done.' Since last weekend, protests in Hollywood have continued and are expected to persist through the weekend. Though they began peacefully, several have turned violent, with law enforcement as the target in some cases. According to Time magazine, more than 350 people have either been detained or arrested since the protests began on June 6. In his 36-page ruling, Breyer argued that the Trump administration acted unlawfully in federalizing the National Guard without consent from Newsom, as the commander in chief of the state of California. 'His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,' he said. But in response, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly ultimately said the district court has no authority to dictate Trump's authority as president: 'The president exercised his lawful authority to mobilize the National Guard to protect federal buildings and personnel in Gavin Newsom's lawless Los Angeles. The Trump administration will immediately appeal this abuse of power and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,' Kelly said, per The Associated Press.
American Military News
13-06-2025
- 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.
Global News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Global News
‘Stay away' from demonstrations, Canada warns citizens amid L.A. tensions
The Canadian government is cautioning citizens in the United States to 'stay away from demonstrations' in Los Angeles and other major cities that could jeopardize their safety and security. According to the federal government's travel advisory website, although Canadians visiting the United States are generally advised to 'take normal security precautions,' there is now a heightened potential security risk flagged for those travellers related to the ongoing demonstrations. 'Since June 6, 2025, large demonstrations have been taking place in Los Angeles. Demonstrations are also occurring in other major cities,' the advisory update issued late Wednesday states. 'Additional security forces have been deployed and a curfew is in effect for most of downtown Los Angeles from 8 pm to 6 am. Additional curfew orders may be imposed on short notice.' 3:07 'These aren't the criminals': L.A. mayor urges Trump administration to stop ICE raids In addition, the government statement lists tips for Canadian travellers in the United States, and the Los Angeles area in particular. Story continues below advertisement This includes staying away from demonstrations, following the instructions of local authorities and imposed curfew orders, and monitoring local media for updates. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The federal government also includes a list of general tips and advice for Canadian travellers visiting the U.S. urging them to stay vigilant about risks related to potential crimes, fraud, terrorism, hiking and mountaineering, as well as air travel and crossing the U.S. border into Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged Thursday to carry on with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown despite waves of unrest across the U.S. Hours later, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order directing Trump to return control of the National Guard to California. The order, which takes effect at noon Friday, said the deployment of the guard was illegal and both violated the 10th Amendment and exceeded his statutory authority. — with files from The Associated Press.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court stays order against Trump's use of National Guard
June 13 (UPI) -- The California National Guard will remain on the streets of downtown Los Angeles Friday after an appeals court put an order from a federal judge to remove the soldiers on hold only hours after it was decreed. "The court has received the government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote last Thursday after after the Trump administration requested a delay. "The request for an administrative stay is granted," the circuit judges continued in a single-page, six-sentence order that stops a temporary restraining order that had President Donald Trump relinquishing control of the state's National Guard away from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. "The appeals court ruled last night that I can use the National Guard to keep our cities, in this case Los Angeles, safe," Trump posted to his Truth Social account Friday, "If I didn't send the military into Los Angeles, that city would be burning to the ground right now. We saved L.A. Thank you for the decision!!!" Trump had been stopped, albeit briefly, from the deployment of those troops in the state's largest city other than protecting federal buildings. Newsom had filed suit against Trump, who federalized 4,000 members of the Guard and sent them to Los Angeles to stand against demonstrators protesting raids by Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents that began last week. Newsom, the rightful commander-in-chief of the California National Guard when it is under state control, was not informed or involved with Trump's action, and filed that suit to strike it down. U,S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled initial filing Thursday and issued a temporary restraining order that stated Trump's deployment of the Guard to police the city's streets likely violated the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which bars federal overreach. "It is well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment," Breyer wrote in his ruling. Breyer further added that the "citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade and perform other critical functions." The Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which put a hold on Breyer's order until at least Tuesday at noon, and allows the White House to keep the Guard on active patrol in Los Angeles. Newsom has not publicly commented as of yet on the Ninth Circuit's stay of Breyer's order, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office issued a statement that called the administrative stay "unnecessary and unwarranted in light of the district court's extensive reasoning."
