Latest news with #JudgeBreyer
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard deployed, for now
A federal appeals court panel late Thursday allowed President Trump to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles, for now. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously extended its pause of a judge's order finding Trump's deployment illegal and forcing him to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. 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 appeals panel wrote in its unsigned, 38-page decision. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Trump has sent in thousands of National Guard troops to protect immigration officers in the wake of recent protests in Los Angeles, which at times have devolved into violence. The move quickly sparked a lawsuit from Newsom and the state's attorney general. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued last week's decision invalidating the deployment, is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer is an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In deploying the troops, Trump cited a statute that allows him to federalize the National Guard whenever there is a rebellion or when he cannot execute federal laws with regular forces. The appeals panel said Thursday it agreed the latter trigger was likely met, so it didn't need to reach the question of whether there was a rebellion. 'Plaintiffs' own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,' the opinion reads. The three-judge appeals panel comprised two Trump-nominated judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Biden. The 9th Circuit also rejected Newsom's argument Trump failed a statutory requirement to issue his deployment order 'through' the governor. Newsom contended it established a requirement that he consent, but the appeals panel said notifying the adjutant general of the California National Guard was likely sufficient. The panel stressed the statute 'does not give governors any veto power over the President's federalization 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. The president is not a king and not above the law,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he continued. Updated June 20 at 8:30 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Newsom Denied Day In Court In Latest Trump Battle Over Troops In LA As Judge Punts: 'You Are Going To Tell Me What To Do,' He Informs DOJ & State Lawyers
In the fog of jurisdictional war, the legal battle between Donald Trump & Gavin Newsom over troops on the ground the streets in Los Angeles took a judicial pause today Just hours after an Appeals Court shut down the California Governor's attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order on POTUS' control of National Guard troops, Newsom has seen hopes of a quick work around dashed by a federal judge. More from Deadline Donald Trump's Two-Week Notice: Late-Night Hosts Have Fun With President's Favorite Measure Of Time JD Vance Visiting Los Angeles On Friday Amid ICE Raids And Protests Trump Brags About "Big Win" Over Newsom With Court Ordered Continued Control Of California National Guard, For Now - Update 'Now it is not clear to me that the 9th Circuit stay of the TRO divests this court of its usual authority pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure …to grant or modify an injunction as to the Posse Comitatus Act following its refusal to grant one,' Judge Charles Breyer told lawyers Eric Hamilton for Trump and Jane Reilley for Newsom this morning in a hearing in San Francisco. 'Of course, this court recognizes that the 9th Circuit has the authority to modify, restore or grant an injunction while the appeal is pending, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure …so that I can be sure that I'm operating within my jurisdiction, I would like the parties to submit briefs by noon on Monday, June 23 2025 addressing whether this court or the Ninth Circuit retains primary jurisdiction to modify or grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act,' the clearly not pleased Bill Clinton appointee added. Under a very targeted reading of an obscure statute, Trump moved to federalize the Golden State National Guard on June 7 without Newsom's consent in response to protests over a flood of ICE raids in and around LA on June 6. Since then the parties have traded insults over social media and mainstream media, as well as been in and out of court as citizens have taken to the streets, federal buildings have become make-shift detention centers for immigrants hauled in by masked and often no warrant producing agents, and a curfew was placed on DTLA for over a week. Adding a further wrinkle in what has been by any measure a proceeding draining its relevance by the day as tensions in LA over the troops' downtown presence lessen even as ICE raid intensify, Judge Breyer left the next move a hanging chad of sorts. 'Depending on what you say, because I I'm actually interested in what authority I have, I'll decide what to do next,' he said to the DOJ and state attorneys, who were both obviously ready to argue their respective POV on a preliminary injunction in the Trump/Newsom tug-o-war. 'Maybe I'll have a hearing, maybe I won't, I don't know,' Judge Breyer said. I don't know, that's what you're going to tell me. You're going to tell me what to do. My guess is you might disagree, but nevertheless, I invite you to address that issue.' While the Judge one again pushed a decision on this matter down the line, as he did earlier this month when the state first moved for an emergency TRO, Breyer did indicate in no small measure where he was coming from Friday. Before telling the lawyers and their high-powered clients how her want to proceed, Judge Breyer spoke about the unanimous order released last night from the trio of appeals court judges (two trump appointees, and one Joe Biden appointee). In particular, he centered on one area of the 38-page order that may, just may, provide some wiggle-room, or interpretation, as courts love to say. 'In opposing the stay, Plaintiffs do not press their claims based on the Posse Comitatus Act or the APA,' Judge Breyer read out from page 13 of Thursday's 9th Circuit order. 'Consequently, the parties' disputes about how federal forces are being deployed are not before us.' That last sentence being the potential magic bullet, literally and figuratively, for Newsom in taking charge again of the state's troops. BTW, if you missed that particular episode of Schoolhouse Rock, the Posse Comitatus Act is 1812 passed law that pretty much blocks the use of the US military, including the National Guard when they are under federal control, from being deployed domestically as a police force. Of course, like so many laws from centuries ago and even last week, the PCA has vague areas and loopholes. For one, Congress can simply vote in a specific deployment. Another exception is the invoking of the Insurrection Act by the President, or perhaps conditions close to but not exactly at the rebellion standard of the Insurrection Act. Findings by Breyer, based on the briefs, could put the PCA under such scrutiny as to permit an injunction in fact or in name,. In reaction and escalation of a different sort in a nation combating several constitutional crisis' a day at this point, that could also see the conflict loving Trump administration kick it all upstairs to the Supreme Court as they have threatened to do before if things didn't go their way. Despite what local law enforcement and the likes of the Mayor and Newsom have very loudly said, the White House has justified its actions by claiming things had spiraled out of control in LA with the response to the ICE raids of June 6, and the feds had to step in fast. It will be interesting to see how this is addressed in the forthcoming briefs from the lawyers on both sides,. It will also be interesting, if that's the word, to see if Vice President JD Vance will bloviate on the matter during his dine and dash visit to LA that was hastily announced this morning, likely in response to the 9th Circuit ruling of last night. Add to that, what Newsom and the state Attorney General's office lawyer Reilley said to the court after Judge Breyer made his desire for further briefs known. In addition to the Posse Comitatus Act issue regarding whether or how federalized troops have been engaging in civil law enforcement,' she noted, because of the discretionary power here of Defense Secretary and defendant Pete Hegseth. 'We would also want the court to address the duration of the order and the parameters for when the order should conclude.' As it is, 4,000 National Guard troops are in and around LA, mainly guarding federal buildings, as are about 700 U.S. Marines. Even with the ICE protests, the No Kings demonstrations of June 14 and similar actions planned, the Marines deployment is not a part of the back-and-forth between Trump and Newsom, at least not yet. FYI – to be clear, sadly there never was an episode of Schoolhouse Rock about the Posse Comitatus Act, but admit it, it's not a bad idea at all. Best of Deadline 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg The 25 Highest-Grossing Animated Films Of All Time At The Global Box Office The Movies That Have Made More Than $1 Billion At The Global Box Office
Washington Post
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating Posse Comitatus Act
SAN FRANCISCO — California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles.
ABC News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Trump can keep control of National Guard in LA, appeals court rules
A US appeals court has let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Mr Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most populous city. On Thursday (local time), a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on US District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Mr Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Mr Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Mr Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalise the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalised National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Mr Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and US Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Judge Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Mr Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against our citizens." Mr Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "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." Judge Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Mr Trump's action brought by Mr Newsom, where he ruled that Mr Trump violated a US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Judge Breyer ordered Mr Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Mr Newsom. Hours after Judge Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Mr Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Mr Newsom's wishes. Mr Trump also ordered 700 US Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilisation. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Judge Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Mr Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalise state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used a trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalised property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit, California said Mr Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Mr Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. Reuters
BBC News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
US court allows Trump to keep control of National Guard in LA
A US appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles, despite objections from city leaders and California Governor Gavin deployed the troops in response to widespread protests against his immigration crackdown. Local officials called it an unnecessary provocation.A three-judge panel on Thursday said he was within his rights to order the troops into service to "protect federal personnel... [and] property". Trump called it a "big win".The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when mobilising the troops. In that earlier ruling, Judge Charles Breyer said Trump "did not" follow the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard."His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith," he wrote in his judge however stayed the order until 13 June to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it, which it did almost immediately unanimous ruling said Trump's "failure to issue the federalisation order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard"."This is much bigger than Gavin [Newsom], 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," Trump wrote on social media after the also congratulated the court, adding: "America is proud of you tonight!" The 38-page ruling, however, said the judges disagreed with the president on the merits of the legal challenge against his use of the National Guard. It said his decision to use the troops was not "completely insulated from judicial review".Newsom responded to the decision, saying 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."We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked", he wrote on X, adding: "Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law."The court's decision allows for the continued deployment of around 4,000 troops to Los Angeles. The Trump administration says they have been protecting federal immigration agents and federal property during said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they conducted raids across Los Angeles to detain people they believed were in the country also ordered 700 Marines to the city, despite Newsom's objections. The National Guard was last deployed by a president without a governor's consent during the civil rights era more than 50 years ago.
