California filed suit against the Trump administration June 9, asserting that its activation and deployment of the state National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles is unconstitutional. The suit asks the US District Court for the Northern District of California to halt President Donald Trump’s “unlawful militarization” of Los Angeles.
Calling Trump’s actions an abuse of power that needs to be ended, Gov. Gavin Newsom further described the administration’s move as “an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.” The governor stated that the calling up of the California National Guard unit, after the governor expressed his objection, only escalated the violence and chaos in Los Angeles. The governor characterized the administration’s “federalizing the California National Guard” as an illegitimate takeover that had no legal basis. Finally, Newsom warned that the memorandum Trump issued on June 7, entitled “Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions,” could be used for the president to “assume control of any state militia.”
California’s lawsuit comes as the US Northern Command has announced that it is activating 700 Marines to Los Angeles. The Marines are set to join the California National Guard members who were deployed there over the weekend for the purpose of “protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.” The Northern Command press release stated that the National Guard members who had already been deployed to Los Angeles and the 700 Marines are both “trained in de-escalation, crowd control, and standing rules for the use of force.” Together the Guard and Marine personnel are to be designated Task Force 51.
The unrest began on Friday June 6, when protesters gathered outside the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles following reports that Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were conducting raids throughout the city. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was called to the protests, which were later classified as an “unlawful assembly.” On the following night, Trump issued his memorandum activating some 2,000 California National Guard troops to be deployed to the protests. This came despite Newsom’s expressed preference for the LAPD to deal with the protesters. On June 8, after the National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles, the governor demanded that they be withdrawn. Newsom called Trump’s activation of the National Guard illegal, citing 10 USC § 12406(3).
From JURIST, June 10. Used with permission.
See our last reports on domestic militarization and the struggle in California.
Photo: USÂ Northern Command via Wikimedia Commons
Judge denies request to block deployment of troops to Los Angeles
A federal judge on June 10Â denied a request by the state of California for an emergency order blocking the deployment of additional federalized National Guard troops and US Marines to the Los Angeles area.
Gov. Gavin Newsom argued that the deployment of the National Guard violates state sovereignty and poses an immediate threat to public safety and civil order. Newsom also argued that the Posse Comitatus Act has historically prohibited the use of active duty armed forces and federalized National Guard for civilian law enforcement. Therefore, the use of “federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” is unlawful.
Judge Charles Breyer denied Newsom’s request and scheduled a hearing for two days later in San Francisco federal court. (Jurist)
Appeals court stays block on deployment of troops to LA
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked a lower court’s decision to return the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s control late June 12. A hearing on the temporary stay, which reversed US District Judge Charles Breyer’s ruling earlier that day to remove the California National Guard from federal control, has been scheduled for the coming week. (Jurist)
9th circuit rules for Trump authority over California Guard
A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 19 that President Donald Trump likely had the authority to mobilize members of the California National Guard over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to protests against US immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. While the court wrote that Trump’s decision is not “completely insulated from judicial review,” it added that he likely exercised his authority lawfully under § 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code.
The decision follows a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Gov. Newsom, who asked a lower court to enjoin the Trump administration from permitting US military forces deployed in California “to execute or assist in the execution of any federal agent or officer’s enforcement of federal law.” The governor urged the court to return control of the California National Guard to him and the state. (Jurist)
Judge rules deployment of troops to LA violated 1878 law
A federal judge ruled Sept. 2 that President Donald Trump violated the law by deploying military forces to conduct crowd control and arrests in Los Angeles, marking a significant legal rebuke of the administration’s domestic use of armed forces.
In his decision, Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California sided with the State of California, finding that Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles since June 7 violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which restricts military forces from enforcing domestic law except where explicitly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Since the LA deployment, Trump has initiated a federal takeover of the Washington, DC police force, and has mused about doing the same in other major cities, including Chicagoand Baltimore. If Breyer’s opinion is upheld as it inevitably goes up for appeal, it would drastically inhibit Trump’s agenda to provide federal “law and order” on US streets.
Newsom lauded the ruling, saying in a statement:
Breyer’s ruling enjoined the Trump administration from “deploying, ordering, instructing, training, or using the National Guard currently deployed in California, and any military troops heretofore deployed in California, to execute the laws, including but not limited to engaging in arrests, apprehensions, searches, seizures, security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, riot control, evidence collection, interrogation, or acting as informants, unless and until Defendants satisfy the requirements of a valid constitutional or statutory exception, as defined herein, to the Posse Comitatus Act.” However, he stayed an injunction until Sept. 12, giving the administration time to appeal. (Jurist)
Applying only to California, this is a narrower decision than that issued by Breyer in June and later rejected by the Ninth Circuit. (NYT)
SCOTUS stays order blocking ICE stops based on race, language​
The US Supreme Court on Sept. 8Â stayed a federal judge’s order that had restricted immigration enforcement operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing the government to resume controversial raids while the case proceeds through appeals.
The case stems from federal immigration raids that began in Los Angeles in June. Officers targeted locations known to be frequented by immigrants and detained people based on factors such as ethnicity and language, according to court documents.
Critics have decried the evident lack of due process. The ACLU, one of the advocacy groups that filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of several individuals that were impacted by the raids, stated:
In July, the US District Court for the Central District of California found that these stops appeared to be based on four factors: an individual’s race or ethnicity; whether they spoke Spanish or accented English; if they were located at a place frequented by immigrants; and what they appeared to do for work. The District Court concluded that the stops violated the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures. The court issued a temporary injunction, barring federal officials from making stops on the basis of these four factors alone pending the outcome of the case.
In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction, effectively enabling federal officers to resume raids based on such criteria.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion supporting the stay, arguing the government demonstrated a “fair prospect of success” on both legal standing and Fourth Amendment grounds. He noted that about 10% of the Los Angeles region’s population is in the country illegally, making enforcement “especially pronounced” there.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a sharp dissent calling the majority’s decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket.” She went on:
The case will continue through the lower courts while the government’s immigration operations proceed under the stay. (Jurist)