Latest news with #PosseComitatus
Fox News
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Federal judge asks if National Guard deployment in Los Angeles violates Posse Comitatus Act
A federal judge on Friday asked if the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil. This comes as California's challenge to President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to respond to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing. That followed an appeals court handing the Trump administration a victory in the case, with the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowing the president to keep control of National Guard troops he sent to quell riots. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer did not issue any additional rulings but asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the federal department violated the Posse Comitatus Act. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in his complaint that "violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway" but last week, Breyer delayed considering that allegation. Vice President JD Vance, who traveled to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with deployed troops, argued that the court said Trump's reason for sending in federal troops "was legitimate" and that he would do it again if needed. "The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard because it's unnecessary," Vance told reporters. National Guard troops have been accompanying federal agents on some immigration raids over the anti-ICE demonstrations, and Marines briefly detained a man on the first day they deployed to protect a federal building, marking the first time federal troops have detained a civilian since deploying to Los Angeles. Breyer found Trump acted illegally when Trump deployed troops despite opposition from Newsom. But the appellate ruling halted the judge's temporary restraining order. On Friday, Breyer asked the lawyers to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has requested a preliminary injunction returning the control of troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days, back to Newsom. Trump argued that the troops are needed to restore order, while Newsom said their presence on the streets escalated tensions and wasted resources. Breyer said Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he noted allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" Breyer said. The administration argued that courts cannot second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled that presidents do not have unchecked power to seize control of a state's National Guard, but also said that by pointing to violent acts by protesters in this case, the administration had presented enough evidence to show it had reason for federalizing the troops. The California National Guard will stay under federal control, at least for now, as the lawsuit proceeds. This is the first federal deployment of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965.
Globe and Mail
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
U.S. judge delays additional rulings in case against Trump's military deployment in LA
California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of 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 in the case. 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. Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already under way' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Despite the appellate setback, California's attorneys are expected to ask Breyer on Friday for a preliminary injunction returning control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days, to Newsom. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents in SUVs and cargo vans had gathered with their faces covered a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. Los Angeles Dodgers deny ICE agents access to stadium grounds On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. '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. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. '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,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was travelling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.
The Independent
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating Posse Comitatus Act
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 by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. The hearing comes a day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Breyer also asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction returning control to Newsom of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations have appeared to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans, had gathered at a parking lot. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew in downtown Los Angeles that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. '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. Newsom, for his part, has also warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. '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,' Newsom said. Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance was traveling to Los Angeles on Friday to meet with U.S. Marines who also have been deployed to protect federal buildings, his office announced.
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.
Forbes
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Is Domestic Use of the Military the New Normal?
A demonstrator holding a sign reading "Marines!!! Where Were You Jan. 6" confronts police during a ... More protest following federal immigration operations in Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. President Donald Trump's administration said on June 9 that it was sending 700 US Marines and thousands more National Guard troops to Los Angeles, sparking a furious response from California's governor over the "deranged" deployment. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by RINGO CHIU / AFP) (Photo by RINGO CHIU/AFP via Getty Images) President Trump's decision to send thousands of National Guard members and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles may mark a turning point in civil-military relations in the United States with ramifications for years to come. The Marines are trained to fight foreign adversaries, not rein in political demonstrators on U.S. soil. This kind of deployment is supposed to be rare. Routine use of the military is outlawed under the Posse Comitatus Act, except where explicitly authorized by law. The Posse Comitatus Act consists of one sentence: 'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' A case in which Congress has authorized the use of troops in a domestic role is the Insurrection Act. The Brennan Center for Justice describes the provisions of the act as follows: 'Under this law, in response to a state government's request, the president may deploy the military to suppress an insurrection in that state. In addition, the Insurrection Act allows the president — with or without the state government's consent — to use the military to enforce federal law or suppress a rebellion against federal authority in a state, or to protect a group of people's civil rights when the state government is unable or unwilling to do so.' Do street demonstrations against the administration's immigration policy constitute an insurrection, or are they an example of people exercising their constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances? There is no doubt that the president has an expansive view of when and how he can try to intimidate demonstrators to the point of threatening violence, as evidenced by his threat that anyone who protests the June 14th military parade in Washington will be 'met by heavy force.' Many veterans have criticized the administration's use of the military as a law enforcement agency, but none more clearly than Major Paul Eaton (retired), who noted that the United States didn't see the need to stage military parades in the best because 'there was no questioning the power and global reach of our military –and because our greatest strength was our democracy. Today, that democracy is under attack [and] From one perspective, the June 14th parade is a one day spectacle that many Americans will see as a welcome thank you to military personnel who have risked their lives on missions that were defined as protecting America. There is room for disagreement about that. But there should be little or no disagreement that deploying troops against protesters sets a dangerous precedent that puts our democracy at risk. Stephen I. Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, has placed the Trump administration's use of the military in historical perspective: 'It's not that we haven't had presidents use the military domestically before. . . It's that there has been such a clear factual predicate [but] [t]here's really no history of using those authorities for what really are partisan political purposes, more than they are public safety restoration purposes.' Long after the June 14th parade is over and forgotten, the question of the proper role of the military in a democratic society will remain. It's time to open up that debate – in Congress, in the media, and in homes and workplaces all over America. We can't afford to sit this one out.
