Los Angeles, California — The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay on Thursday against a federal judge’s ruling that ordered President Donald Trump to relinquish control of National Guard troops stationed in California. This deployment followed protests in Los Angeles related to recent immigration enforcement activities. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 17.
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office responded to the appellate decision by referencing his earlier confidence in the judicial system. Newsom stated, “I trust in the rule of law and the judgment of a respected federal judge,” expressing hope that the original ruling would ultimately prevail.
Just hours before the appeals court’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer declared the deployment of the National Guard as illegal, asserting it violated both the Tenth Amendment and exceeded the President’s authority. This ruling specifically addressed the National Guard troops, excluding Marines who were also sent to assist during the protests; the judge noted he would not comment on the Marines, as they had not yet been deployed to active duty on the streets.
The National Guard troops had been activated to support intensified immigration enforcement as part of Trump’s broader agenda. In response, Newsom initiated legal proceedings seeking a temporary restraining order against the involvement of these troops, citing concerns over the potential escalation of the situation in Los Angeles.
Following the initial ruling, Newsom clarified that the National Guard would revert to their previous duties, including border security and counter-drug operations, while also preparing for California’s fire season. “The National Guard will return to their essential roles,” he remarked in a press conference.
In contrast, the White House criticized the court’s order, calling it unprecedented and a potential danger to federal officials. Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly emphasized the President’s constitutional authority to deploy the National Guard, framing the legal actions against the administration as a challenge to the Commander-in-Chief’s powers.
Newsom has cautioned that the military presence in the city is reflective of a broader trend to undermine democratic norms, intensifying public sentiment surrounding the ongoing protests. Demonstrations have erupted in cities nationwide over the past week, with officials reporting violent exchanges between law enforcement and protesters in places like Seattle and Denver.
On the same day, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla confronted Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem during a news conference, leading to his removal. Noem condemned his actions as inappropriate, a sentiment echoed by Newsom, who described the incident as “dictatorial.”
As military deployments to Los Angeles have escalated, Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman confirmed that approximately 2,000 National Guard soldiers are currently on the ground, with an additional 2,000 and 700 Marines expected to join. The Guard members include personnel trained to assist in immigration operations, although law enforcement remains responsible for arrests.
As public demonstrations continue to unfold across the nation, state governors are assessing their responses to potential federal troop deployments in their jurisdictions. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has placed 5,000 National Guard members on standby amid anticipated protests.
In a united front, numerous mayors from the Los Angeles area have called for an end to intensified immigration crackdowns and the deployment of military forces in civilian matters. They urged federal officials to cease actions that instill fear in local communities.
Since the beginning of the protests, Los Angeles police reported nearly 470 arrests, predominantly for failure to disperse. Some allegations included serious charges like assault and possession of dangerous items. Officers encountered injuries during the clashes, although many were treated and released shortly after.
This report was generated automatically and may contain inaccuracies. Requests for removal, retraction, or correction of this article can be made by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.