SAN FRANCISCO — A federal courtroom in San Francisco examined California’s challenge to the Trump administration’s military presence in Los Angeles during a hearing on Friday, shortly after a federal appeals court afforded President Donald Trump a significant procedural victory.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer did not issue any immediate rulings but requested both parties to submit briefs by noon on Monday regarding a potential violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits military involvement in civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil.
This hearing followed a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing Trump to maintain control over the National Guard troops he dispatched in response to protests arising from immigration enforcement operations. California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed concerns in his complaint, asserting that a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act was “imminent, if not already underway.” However, Breyer deferred addressing this claim last week.
During his visit to Los Angeles on Friday, Vice President JD Vance, a Marine Corps veteran, met with the deployed troops, including U.S. Marines tasked with safeguarding federal facilities. Vance indicated that the court confirmed the legitimacy of Trump’s decision to dispatch troops, affirming that the administration would take similar actions when necessary.
“The president has made a straightforward proposal: if law enforcement upholds local and federal laws, there will be no need for National Guard deployment,” Vance told reporters after visiting a federal command site. His tour occurred as protests, which had sometimes turned violent, began to subside following earlier unrest in Southern California.
National Guard troops accompanied federal agents on immigration operations, and there was a reported incident where Marines detained an individual on their first day of deployment — a significant development, as it marked the first federal detention of a civilian since the troop presence began.
The legal struggle focused on whether federal jurisdiction or Judge Breyer holds primary authority to issue an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California’s ongoing push for a preliminary injunction aims to restore state control over the National Guard troops, whose presence has become a point of contention amid the reducing tensions in protests over the past days.
Trump has argued that the presence of these troops was essential for restoring order, while Newsom contended that their deployment exacerbated tensions and undermined local governance.
As protests appear to diminish, dozens of demonstrators gathered last Thursday outside Dodger Stadium, where federal agents had assembled. The Dodgers organization requested the agents’ departure, which was complied with.
In a significant move, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a curfew imposed earlier due to vandalism and clashes with law enforcement over immigration actions, demonstrating a shifting landscape in the city’s response to unrest.
The president invoked Title 10, which authorizes the federalization of National Guard members in cases of invasion, rebellion, or an inability to enforce federal laws. However, Breyer noted that Trump exceeded his legal authority, emphasizing that the protests in Los Angeles did not meet the threshold of “rebellion.”
The appellate court maintained that while presidential authority is designated in national emergencies, it does not extend unrestrictedly over state National Guard units. The court found merit in the Trump administration’s rationale for federal action, citing incidents of violence during protests.
For the time being, the National Guard will remain under federal control as litigation continues. This deployment marks a historic instance where troops were sent by a president without state consent since federal troops were deployed to protect Civil Rights marches in 1965.
Trump celebrated the appellate court’s ruling as a substantial victory, suggesting that further deployments might be on the horizon. Newsom cautioned that if the administration continues down this path, other states could also face similar military presence.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI, and while efforts were made to ensure accuracy, it may contain inaccuracies regarding people, facts, circumstances, and events. Requests for corrections or retractions can be sent to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.