California governor Gavin Newsom received a big win in court after a judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from activating U.S. military troops in Los Angeles, but it was short-lived after an appeals court halted the decision.
On Thursday, San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s deployment of the California National Guard was unlawful and ordered the control of the National Guard to return to Governor Gavin Newsom, who sued to restrict its activity.
During the Thursday hearing, Judge Breyer reportedly seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s argument that courts could not question the president’s judgment on key legal issues, including whether the protests and unrest in Los Angeles constituted “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” in an attempt to argue that the military mobilization is legal under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Forces, which gives the president the authority to federalize the National Guard if there is “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.”
“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and of course, the president is limited in his authority,” Judge Breyer said. “That’s the difference between the president and King George.”
In a 36-page sharply worded decision, Breyer declared the actions not only unlawful but a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, writing that “it is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws.”
Breyer also toppled Trump’s claim of a “rebellion in L.A.” to use the federal provision to activate state troops over the anti-immigration protests, writing that “the protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.”
“Violence is necessary for a rebellion, but it is not sufficient,” Breyer wrote. “Even accepting the questionable premise that people armed with fireworks, rocks, mangoes, concrete, chairs, or bottles of liquid are ‘armed’ in a 1903 sense – the Court is aware of no evidence in the record of actual firearms – there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were ‘open or avowed.’”
In a scathing blow, the Judge also addressed Trump’s claims that the protests were an attempted insurrection, as seen on January 6th with his previous administration, noting that there’s no evidence to support the claim.
“Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole,” Breyer wrote. “The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue – the immigration raids.”
Following the decision, the Trump Administration filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit, which ruled to allow Trump to maintain his deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over stepped-up immigration enforcement, temporarily pausing the lower court’s ruling to block the mobilization.
The court’s decision does not give Trump the green light from the judicial system to continue his militarized attack on citizens, but it did give him the ability to temporarily maintain control of the National Guard.
Despite the minor setback, the outcome of Newsom’s lawsuit strikes a critical blow against the Trump Administration’s continued attempt at executive overreach, especially when it comes at the expense of our constitutional rights and guaranteed freedoms.
“Today was really about a test of democracy, and today we passed the test,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said. “Donald Trump has tested the limits of that, and has done so consistently, but today’s order makes clear that he is not above or beyond constitutional constraints.
While Trump attempted to gaslight the American people into believing that federal troops were needed to “prevent Los Angeles from being obliterated,” the facts tell another story. One that shows that peaceful protests were being met with an increasingly violent response, not just from troops, but from local police as well.
A now-viral video of LAPD officers on horseback clubbing unarmed demonstrators for simply walking down the street painted a chilling picture of what’s at stake: not just the right to protest, but the freedom to exist in public space without being assaulted by the very people sworn to protect us.
This isn’t just about Trump’s misuse of the military; it’s about the intentional erosion of state sovereignty and our civil liberties under the guise of “law and order” by an administration run by a felon.
Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which the Trump Administration attempted to use to wreak havo,c also requires that orders from the president “be issued through the governors of the States”, which did not happen for California.
According to the lawsuit, on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo to the head of the California Guard to mobilize nearly 2,000 members, who then sent the memo to Newsom’s office, resulting in neither Newsom nor his office consenting to the mobilization.
Newsom wrote a letter to Hegseth on Sunday, asking him to rescind the troop deployment, stating that the mobilization was “a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state of deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required.”
Judge Breyer wrote in his decision that Trump had not satisfied any of the requirements that must be met in order to call up members of a state’s National Guard and that the president had not complied with a procedural aspect of federal law that requires presidents to issue an order “through the governor” when they want to federalize state troops.
“Regardless of whether Defendants gave Governor Newsom an opportunity to consult with them or consent to the federalization of California’s National Guard, they did not issue their orders through him, and thus failed to comply with federal law”, Breyer wrote.
The panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit – two Trump appointees and an appointee of former President Joe Biden – said it will hold a hearing Tuesday on the issue.
Meanwhile, the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. LAPD has reported over 200 arrests in recent days, most for violations as minor as curfew or “unlawful assembly.” But that’s not stopping Trump from continuing to frame these demonstrations as violent uprisings, conveniently omitting that most violence has come from law enforcement, not the demonstrators.
Adding more fuel to the attempted chaos, Sen. Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from a news conference with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who vowed to press ahead with the administration’s immigration crackdown, despite the unrest, the rulings, or the public outcry.
This is where we are, America. Peaceful protestors getting trampled by horses; federal troops deployed without consent; elected officials ejected for asking questions; and a president who treats constitutional law like an optional suggestion.
But Thursday’s ruling is a reminder that good trouble still matters. That courts can still uphold the rule of law. That governors still have authority over their states and that the people, when loud, unified, and unafraid, can still hold the line.
If this truly is a test of our democracy, California just helped the nation pass this one, but the fight isn’t over.
SEE ALSO:
Dear Black Folks: The Protests Against ICE Are Absolutely Our Fight Too [Op-Ed]
Here’s All Of The US Cities Protesting ICE Raids As Trump’s Troop Deployment Continues
Appeals Court Gives Trump Temporary Control Of California National Guard
was originally published on
newsone.com
