Latest news with #Marines
Los Angeles Times
40 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.'
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for defamation
Filings in the case repeatedly reference the $787 million settlement Fox agreed to in 2023 with Dominion, a voting machine company, after the news network repeated Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen using their equipment. "If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences - just like it did in the Dominion case," Newsom said in a statement provided to USA TODAY. "I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine." In a statement, Fox dismissed the lawsuit as "frivolous." "Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him," the statement reads. "We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed." According to the filing, Newsom brought the case after Fox host Jesse Watters and reporter John Roberts claimed he lied about when he last spoke by phone with Trump during June protests in Los Angeles. Newsom's filing claims he last spoke with Trump for approximately 16 minutes by phone on June 7, one day before the president deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops over Newsom's objections to quell protests in Los Angeles. "At no point (on June 7) did President Trump raise the demonstrations in Los Angeles which had begun that day, nor discuss the use of the National Guard," according to the filing. "And when Governor Newsom attempted to discuss the situation in Los Angeles, President Trump steered the topic away," the filing states. Trump told reporters on June 10 he had spoken with Newsom "a day ago," implying a conversation took place the same day he deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Newsom refuted Trump's claim in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, minutes later, saying "There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to." Newsom's lawyers argue Watters' program edited a video of Trump to support the president's claim and make Newsom look like he lied about their communication. They also allege that Roberts hedged Trump's words to make it appear that he was talking about the June 7 call and that Newsom was lying. Newsom is suing as an individual, not in his capacity as governor. Newsom's lawyers argue in the filing that the incident meets the legal standard for defamation and potentially harmed the governor's standing with voters in future elections. Additionally, they claim it violated California's Unfair Competition Law, which outlaws "deceptive and unfair business practices."
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for defamation and demands $787m
The governor of California, Gavin Newsom, has sued Fox News for defamation and demanded $787m, almost exactly the same amount Fox paid in a previous defamation case over election misinformation. In the new lawsuit, filed on Friday, Newsom accuses the Fox host Jesse Watters of falsely claiming Newsom lied about a phone call with Donald Trump, who recently ordered national guard troops into Los Angeles. Newsom's attorneys say Watters aired a deceptively edited clip of Trump suggesting he spoke with the governor just before the military deployment, when in fact records show the call occurred days earlier, on 7 June. The lawsuit alleges that Fox manipulated the footage to push a false narrative that Newsom had misled the public. Trump had told reporters on 10 June he had spoken with Newsom 'a day ago', appearing to imply a conversation occurred on the same day that 700 US marines were deployed to LA. Newsom denied Trump's claim, writing on X minutes later: 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' Related: 'This moment was thrust upon him': Gavin Newsom steps up to parry Trump's 'wrecking ball' attacks on American democracy The lawsuit says that Fox's own reporting confirmed Newsom's version. While Watters aired Trump's edited quote and asked viewers 'Why would Newsom lie?', the host simultaneously showed a screenshot of Trump's call history, which confirmed the most recent call was 7 June. Newsom's complaint also accuses the network of violating California's Unfair Competition Law by engaging in deceptive business practices. The damages sought mirror the $787.5m Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle a separate defamation case over election misinformation. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom told Politico in a statement. 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' The governor's team told Politico that they would drop the case if Fox retracts the claims and Watters issues an on-air apology. Newsom said legal costs would come from his campaign funds, and that if the case is successful the proceeds will go to support anti-Trump causes. A Fox News spokesperson said: 'Governor Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed.' Trump has had his own legal battles with media outlets. He recently secured a $15m settlement from ABC over comments made by George Stephanopoulos, and he has sued CBS over alleged interview manipulation by its 60 Minutes program during the 2024 campaign, a case which remains unresolved.
Indian Express
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Newsom sues Fox News for $787 million over Trump call defamation
Fox News is set to defend itself against California Governor Gavin Newsom's $787 million defamation lawsuit, labeling it a 'frivolous publicity stunt' aimed at stifling critical speech. Newsom alleges that Fox News knowingly spread false claims about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump during an immigration enforcement period. The network's segment, featuring host Jesse Watters, claimed Newsom lied about the timing of their conversation, prompting the governor to seek damages for alleged damage to his reputation. The complaint, filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, says Fox News acted with 'actual malice' by airing a misleading segment that accused Newsom of lying about the timing of his last conversation with Trump. The amount of damages sought is the same as the $787.5 million Fox paid in 2023 to settle a separate defamation case with Dominion Voting Systems. Newsom, a Democrat, said he spoke with Trump late on June 6 or early June 7 after federal immigration raids led to protests in Los Angeles. Days later, Trump sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to California without consulting the governor. On June 10, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago,' which Newsom denies. He says there was no further contact after the initial call. Despite this, Fox News aired a segment on 10 June in which host Jesse Watters said, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' according to the lawsuit. The show also included a banner on screen saying 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' According to the complaint, this was part of an effort to damage Newsom's reputation and support Trump. The lawsuit argues that the claims were 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm,' by reducing support for his policies and political future. Newsom is also seeking compensatory damages and has said, according to The New York Times, he would drop the case if Fox issued a retraction and Watters apologised on air. Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment, Reuters reported. Newsom's office also did not comment. To win the case, Newsom will need to prove Fox acted with 'actual malice' that it either knew the information was false or showed reckless disregard for the truth. This legal standard comes from a 1964 US Supreme Court decision, New York Times vs Sullivan. President Trump has also brought defamation claims in recent years. He reached a $15 million settlement with ABC last December after a report wrongly said he was found liable for rape in a civil trial. He also sued CBS for $20 billion over how it edited a '60 Minutes' interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. A mediator has reportedly suggested CBS parent company Paramount pay $20 million to settle.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Hits Fox News With $787 Million Defamation Lawsuit
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has hit Fox News with a $787 million defamation lawsuit after the network falsely claimed Newsom lied about a conversation he had with President Donald Trump. The suit, filed Friday in Delaware, where Fox News is incorporated, accuses the network ― and Fox News host Jesse Watters ― of deliberately misrepresenting a phone call Newsom had with Trump amid protests in Los Angeles earlier this month. 'Fox knew the falsity of the lies its agents were promoting about Governor Newsom,' says the lawsuit, obtained by HuffPost. The issue first began after Trump claimed on June 10 that he had spoken to Newsom about 'a day ago' regarding Trump's deployment of National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The two leaders had spoken by phone late at night June 6 in California, which would have been June 7 in Washington. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter. 'Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' Trump, who has bragged about his cognitive ability even as it's beencalledintoquestion, doubled down on his claim that he'd spoken to Newsom more recently. Trump provided a screenshot of a call log between him and Newsom with Fox News' John Roberts. But the image instead corroborated Newsom's account, showing the two had talked for roughly 16 minutes June 7 ― not June 9, as Trump claimed. 'Likely realizing that June 6 or June 7 is not 'a day ago' from June 10, Mr. Roberts intentionally altered how he presented President Trump's comment, stating that President Trump had said that he had called Governor Newsom 'yesterday or the other day,'' the lawsuit says. Later that night on June 10, Fox News host Watters played a clip of Trump talking about his call with Newsom but edited out Trump's claim that they'd spoken 'a day ago,' according to the lawsuit. Watters then accused Newsom of lying about having a call with Trump at all. 'Newsom responded, and he said there wasn't a phone call,' Watters told his audience. 'He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump's call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' The lawsuit accuses Fox News of deliberately covering for Trump and painting Newsom as a liar. 'It is impossible to know for certain whether President Trump's distortion was intentionally deceptive or merely a result of his poor cognitive state, but Fox's decision to cover up for the President's false statement cannot be so easily dismissed.' The staggering amount of $787 million that Newsom is suing for mirrors the amount that Fox News paid to Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 for lies the network peddled about the 2020 presidential election. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences ― just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement to HuffPost. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Newsom is being represented by private attorney Michael Teter, along with attorney Mark Bankston of the law firm Farrar & Ball. Bankston is no stranger to holding liars accountable, having won more than $40 million in punitive damages against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in 2022 for the lies he spread about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Bankston also is involved in lawsuits against billionaire Elon Musk and far-right network Newsmax. The lawsuit argues Newsom is entitled to punitive damages in this case because 'Fox's defamatory statements were accompanied with malice, wantonness, and a conscious desire to cause injury. Fox purposefully made the defamatory statements heedlessly and with reckless and willful indifference to Governor Newsom's rights.' In a five-page letter to Fox News, Bankston and Teter said they would be prepared to drop the lawsuit if Fox retracts its false claim and Watters apologizes to Newsom on air. Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
