Latest news with #9thU.S.CircuitCourtofAppeals
San Francisco Chronicle
21-06-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
California's 30-day gun law unconstitutional, appeals court rules
California violates the constitutional right to own guns by limiting purchases to one every 30 days, a federal appeals court ruled Friday. It was the latest in a series of decisions reassessing the state's firearms restrictions since the Supreme Court set new limits on gun-control laws four years ago. The state contended its law, which restricted handgun sales in 1999 and was expanded to apply to all firearms last year, was a safety measure to prevent owners from stockpiling weapons and making 'straw sales' to people who could not legally buy them. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the restriction unduly interferes with the right to keep and bear arms. 'We doubt anyone would think government could limit citizens' free-speech right to one protest a month, their free-exercise right to one worship service per month, or their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to apply only to one search or arrest per month,' Judge Danielle Forrest said in the 3-0 ruling. 'Possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment,' Forrest said, 'and California's law is not supported by our nation's tradition of firearms regulation.' She was referring to the standard set by the Supreme Court in 2022 when it overturned New York's ban on carrying concealed handguns in public. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said government restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional unless they are shown to be 'consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Firearms advocates have challenged a number of California laws under that standard. But courts have upheld the state's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in areas such as parks, banks and government buildings. A state law banning gun possession by domestic violence abusers survived when the Supreme Court upheld a similar federal law last year. And the appeals court has upheld a ban on gun sales on state property. In Friday's decision, however, Forrest said limiting where guns can be sold 'is a significantly lesser interference with an individual's ability to acquire (and therefore possess) firearms than banning the purchase of more than one firearm in a 30-day period.' Forrest, appointed by President Donald Trump, was joined by Judges Bridget Bade, another Trump appointee, and John Owens, appointed by President Barack Obama. Owens said in a separate opinion that he agreed with Forrest's reasoning but added that the case 'does not address other means of reducing bulk and straw purchasing of firearms, which our nation's tradition of firearm regulation may support.' The ruling upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge William Hayes of San Diego. Raymond DiGuiseppe, lawyer for gun companies and individuals who challenged the law, said Friday's ruling was 'the only acceptable outcome in a society where all constitutional rights must stand on equal footing.' Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said the state 'is committed to defending our common-sense gun safety laws' and declined further comment. Bonta could ask the full appeals court for a new hearing before a larger panel.
Los Angeles Times
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Vice President JD Vance heads to Los Angeles
Vice President JD Vance is set to arrive in Los Angeles on Friday as part of a surprise visit to the region amid a series of immigration raids that have sparked days of protests and defiance from local officials who oppose the federal raids. It was not immediately clear when the vice president was set to arrive, but his office said in a statement Vance would tour a multi-agency Federal Joint Operations Center, a Federal Mobile Command Center, and meet with Marines who have been sent to the area. He is also expected to make brief remarks during his visit. The visit comes as California and federal officials continue to battle in court over control of the California National Guard, after President Trump took control of the troops and sent them to respond to protests across the city against the continuing immigration raids over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The clash has left Newsom and officials in the Trump administration trading barbs in interviews and social media, and means that despite Vance's sudden visit to the country's most populous state, he is likely not to meet with its highest elected official. 'We're always open to working together — which makes it all the more disappointing that the White House chose not to engage with us directly ahead of the visit,' a statement from the governor's office read. 'We've yet to receive any official notice of the Vice President's trip — which, from what we understand, is focused on a high-dollar fundraiser.' On Thursday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept control of the troops in Trump's hands while the issue is litigated in federal court. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has vowed to continue fighting the Trump administration over the decision.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Late-Night Tirade After ‘Big' Appeals Court Verdict
President Donald Trump embarked on a scathing rant against California Governor Gavin Newsom after scoring a 'big win' surrounding the L.A. protests. A California appeals court ruled Thursday that Trump can continue to control California's National Guard in a blow to Newsom's attempt to reassert authority over his own state. The three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the president's argument he lawfully exercised his authority in taking control of the guard. It added the president showed enough evidence to justify such an argument. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us,' the ruling states. 'And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.' The ruling is not permanent, but extends a pause on a June 12 ruling in favor of Newsom as the battle makes it way through the courts. Trump took control of the state's National Guard last week amid anti-ICE protests, arguing that they were needed in order to support ICE agents and quell protests. Newsom filed a lawsuit in response, with a District Court judge agreeing that Trump was using the National Guard illegally in Los Angeles and ruling that he had to return control over to Newsom—a finding which that was paused hours later and subsequently extended on Thursday. The appeals court, consisting of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, unanimously ruled that Trump had a 'considerable' basis to call up the National Guard, making him the first president in 60 years to activate a state's National Guard against the wishes of its governor. In a late-night tirade to Truth Social following the ruling, Trump gloated, 'BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard!' He continued, taking aim at Newsom, 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' He finished, 'This is a Great Decision for our Country, and we will continue to protect and defend Law abiding Americans. Congratulations to the Ninth Circuit, America is proud of you tonight!' Newsom, meanwhile, responded to the ruling on X, posting that he planned to continue the fight. 'Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law. Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court.' He continued, 'We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked.' Despite ruling in Trump's favor, the court rejected his assertion that the courts had 'no role' in reviewing his decision to federalize the National Guard. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, the judge respinsible for the June 12 decision, is expected to hold a hearing Friday on a decision about issuing an indefinite injunction on the issue.
Chicago Tribune
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court lets President Donald Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
CNBC
20-06-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. "The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant." It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. The California governor's office and the White House didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
