Los Angeles, California – In a contentious legal battle, California Governor Gavin Newsom is challenging President Donald Trump’s authority to deploy National Guard troops in response to ongoing protests in Los Angeles. During a recent hearing at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal attorney asserted that the president holds exclusive power to command the Guard during times of perceived threat, citing federal law regarding rebellion and invasion.
Attorney Brett Shumate, representing the federal government, argued that local law enforcement has been ineffective amid the chaos. “Local authorities are either unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel and property from the mob violence ongoing in Los Angeles,” Shumate stated. He maintained that Trump’s decision to mobilize the Guard was a necessary measure to uphold federal law in the face of disorder.
Newsom’s legal team countered these claims, noting that thousands of state and local police officers have already been deployed to handle the protests, resulting in around 1,000 arrests and the implementation of night curfews. Attorney Sam Harbourt emphasized that the local forces are capable of managing the situation without federal intervention.
The panel of judges, tasked with reviewing the case, probed both parties but refrained from making an immediate ruling on the fate of the 4,000 National Guard troops stationed in Los Angeles. Judge Mark Bennett pressed federal attorneys on the extent of judicial oversight in such decisions, to which Shumate replied that the courts hold no authority to intervene.
Trump’s administration deployed the National Guard amid protests that began largely peacefully yet occasionally escalated into violence due to anger over the administration’s immigration policies. On June 9, Newsom and the state filed a lawsuit contesting the deployment order, labeling it an “outrageous overreach.” Weeks later, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer deemed the president’s actions unconstitutional, ordering the troops to return to state control. However, this ruling was quickly appealed, and the 9th Circuit subsequently reinstated Trump’s command.
In reaction to the court’s decision, Trump claimed responsibility for preventing further chaos in the city, stating that had he not acted, Los Angeles could have descended into greater turmoil. Critics of Trump’s actions argue that his use of military forces could hinder California’s ability to address pressing needs, such as wildfire response and drug enforcement, by diverting Guard resources for what they term an “unlawful mission.”
Harbourt further criticized the broad scope of Trump’s deployment order, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents. He described the order as lacking specific limitations in geography, troop numbers, or duration.
Legal experts, including Stanford Law Professor Robert Weisberg, contend that claims of presidential immunity from judicial review are unfounded. The judges, two appointed by Trump and one by President Joe Biden, may now find themselves tasked with interpreting complex federal statutes regarding military deployment in domestic crises.
“The court’s ruling will hinge largely on how they interpret the laws referenced by the government, particularly concerning the Insurrection Act,” noted Zachary Price, a law professor at UC San Francisco. He expressed skepticism about the current administration’s justification for describing the protests as a rebellion, particularly in light of the debates surrounding the January 6 Capitol riots.
Amid the legal wrangling, anti-Trump activists, like Adarene Hoag from the group “By Any Means Necessary,” vow to continue their protests, asserting that public dissent serves as a crucial check on presidential power.
As the 9th Circuit prepares to digest the arguments presented, a ruling is expected in the coming days, with the potential for further appeals looming should either party find the outcome unsatisfactory.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI. The information, details, and opinions presented may not be accurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org.