logo
#

Latest news with #CivilWar

California hopes law from bloody era of U.S. history can rein in Trump's use of troops
California hopes law from bloody era of U.S. history can rein in Trump's use of troops

Los Angeles Times

time44 minutes ago

  • Politics
  • Los Angeles Times

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.'

From Southern Belle to Spymaster; Uncovering the Tale of Elizabeth Van Lew
From Southern Belle to Spymaster; Uncovering the Tale of Elizabeth Van Lew

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Entertainment
  • Fox News

From Southern Belle to Spymaster; Uncovering the Tale of Elizabeth Van Lew

History is packed with untold stories, and tragically, most remain that way. For quite some time, the life of Elizabeth Van Lew–a Southern belle turned revolutionary spymaster–was among them, until FOX Business correspondent Gerri Willis discovered her story while searching for something to inspire young women during the COVID lockdown. Today, Gerri reveals how, after five years of painstaking research, she uncovered a fascinating tale full of danger, political intrigue, and courage — one she is proud to present in her book, Lincoln's Lady Spymaster: The Untold Story of the Abolitionist Southern Belle Who Helped Win the Civil War . Learn more about your ad choices. Visit

Today in History: President Abraham Lincoln appoints Maj. Gen. George G. Meade
Today in History: President Abraham Lincoln appoints Maj. Gen. George G. Meade

Chicago Tribune

time2 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Chicago Tribune

Today in History: President Abraham Lincoln appoints Maj. Gen. George G. Meade

Today is Saturday, June 28, the 179th day of 2025. There are 186 days left in the year. Today in history: On June 28, 1863, during the Civil War, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln appointed Maj. Gen. George G. Meade as the new commander of the Army of the Potomac, following the resignation of Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker. Also on this date: In 1914, in an act that sparked World War I, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, were shot to death in Sarajevo by Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed in France, ending the First World War. In 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Alien Registration Act, also known as the Smith Act, which required adult foreigners residing in the U.S. to be registered and fingerprinted. In 1969, riots broke out following a police raid at the Stonewall Inn, an LGBTQ+ bar in New York's Greenwich Village neighborhood, leading to six days of violent protests that served as a watershed moment in the LGBTQ+ rights movement. In 1997, boxer Mike Tyson was disqualified from his rematch with heavyweight titleholder Evander Holyfield after Tyson bit Holyfield twice in the third round, including biting off a portion of Holyfield's right ear. In 2000, seven months after he was found adrift in the Straits of Florida, Elian Gonzalez was returned to his native Cuba. In 2017, a man armed with a shotgun attacked the offices of The Capital newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, killing four journalists and a staffer before police stormed the building and arrested him; authorities said Jarrod Ramos had a long-running grudge against the newspaper for its reporting of a harassment case against him. (Ramos would be convicted and sentenced to six life sentences plus 345 years in prison.) In 2019, avowed white supremacist James Alex Fields, who deliberately drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing a young woman and injuring dozens, apologized for his actions before being sentenced to life in prison on federal hate crime charges. In 2022, Ghislaine Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison for helping the wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Today's Birthdays: Filmmaker-comedian Mel Brooks is 99. Diplomat and politician Hans Blix is 97. Actor Bruce Davison is 79. Actor Kathy Bates is 77. Football Hall of Famer John Elway is 65. Actor John Cusack is 59. Actor Mary Stuart Masterson is 59. Actor Tichina Arnold is 56. Filmmaker-actor Mike White is 55. Business executive Elon Musk is 54. Actor Alessandro Nivola is 53. Country singer-TV personality Kellie Pickler is 38. Olympic track gold medalist Elaine Thompson-Herah is 33.

Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants

Time of India

time4 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Time of India

Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants

The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'

It's Bulletproof, Fire-Resistant and Stronger Than Steel. It's Superwood.
It's Bulletproof, Fire-Resistant and Stronger Than Steel. It's Superwood.

Wall Street Journal

time10 hours ago

  • Entertainment
  • Wall Street Journal

It's Bulletproof, Fire-Resistant and Stronger Than Steel. It's Superwood.

FREDERICK, Md.—Inside a cavernous warehouse, in the midst of a half-finished industrial park not far from a Civil War battleground, robot arms the size of Cadillac Escalades are rehearsing their moves for a tightly choreographed dance that will commence later this summer. A strange new substance will begin rolling off the assembly line: soft wood transformed at the molecular level into something stronger than steel yet one-sixth the weight.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store