Legal Challenges Surround Trump Administration's National Guard Deployment in California
A federal appeals court is reviewing the legality of Trump's National Guard deployment in California amid protests, with previous court rulings declaring it illegal.
Overview
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is examining the legality of President Trump's National Guard deployment in California, following previous court rulings against it.
- California Governor Gavin Newsom has sued the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment of troops violates state control.
- In response to anti-ICE protests, the Department of Defense has sent 2,000 additional National Guard troops to Los Angeles for federal protection.
- Judge Charles Breyer ruled the deployment illegal, but an appellate panel has temporarily paused this ruling while further consideration occurs.
- The deployment marks a significant federal intervention in state matters, raising questions about presidential authority and the legality of military actions.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Get both sides in 5 minutes with our daily newsletter.
Analysis
Emphasizes the Ninth Circuit's review of Trump's troop deployment authority amid local criticism.
The Ninth Circuit is reviewing the President's authority to deploy troops, with administration lawyers arguing that a district judge's order was an unprecedented intrusion on his constitutional powers.
The judges did not issue a ruling on Tuesday or give any indication on when they would decide.
Local and state officials have heavily criticized Mr. Trump's move, arguing that local law enforcement were able to handle the protests, some of which turned violent, and saying the deployment of federal troops to city streets has only served to inflame the situation in L.A., a city with a large and diverse immigrant community.
Articles (18)
Center (6)
"…Trump's position that the courts have no business deciding whether he complied with the statute on which he relied speaks volumes about his disregard for the rule of law."
Reason·16d·"…Trump’s order is the first time a president has called upon the National Guard without a governor’s consent in over six decades."
Military Times·16d·"…The judges seemed to indicate that if they had any ability to review the president's move to federalize the National Guard, it would be limited."
ABC News·16d·"…The decision was at the direction of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, officials said."
CBS News·16d·"…The legal battle involves whether the president exceeded his authority when he invoked Title 10 to call forth the California National Guard in response to protests in California's largest city."
CBS News·17d·"…The fight over who controls the National Guard troops in L.A. is increasingly becoming old news."
Deadline·17d·FAQ
President Trump cited Title 10, section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize the National Guard in cases of rebellion against the U.S. government, if regular forces are unable to execute federal law, or in the event of an invasion.
Governor Newsom argues that the Constitution and federal law require the governor's consent to federalize the National Guard, which he did not give, and that the deployment infringes on his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the state’s sovereignty.
President Trump's order authorized the Department of Defense to call up 2,000 National Guard personnel into federal service for a period of 60 days.
The last precedent was in 1970, when President Richard Nixon invoked the law to federalize the National Guard during a mail strike.
A federal judge ruled the deployment illegal, but an appellate panel has temporarily paused this ruling while further legal review occurs.
History
- 16d12 articles
- 17d7 articles
